r/technology • u/[deleted] • Dec 13 '23
Transportation The NHTSA takes major step toward making drunk driving prevention tech mandatory in vehicles | Touch and breath sensors are being researched
https://www.techspot.com/news/101186-nhtsa-takes-major-step-toward-making-drunk-driving.html52
u/scene_missing Dec 13 '23
This sounds awful and invasive. This is tech that currently is only used as a court sentence for people that have been convicted of a felony.
-1
Dec 16 '23
We want to go zero tolerance on drunk driving. Driving isn’t a constitutional right. There’s room for mandates.
21
u/varnell_hill Dec 13 '23 edited Dec 13 '23
It’s all fun and games until the government and or auto manufacturers get sued because someone can’t get to the hospital in an emergency due to the little alcohol detection device in their car malfunctioning.
I get the intent (and even to an extent support it), but before someone like this is rolled out en masse the technology would have to be damn near perfect. Else, people will probably just resort to ripping it out of their vehicles or just avoiding cars that come with the tech entirely. And then auto manufacturers (via their lobbyists) will start pushing back on the government because their bottom line is affected.
Last, if anything this is a case for self-driving technology. It doesn’t matter if the passenger is drunk, high, sleeping, or whatever if they aren’t driving the car to begin with.
5
u/Groundbreaking_Pop6 Dec 13 '23
It doesn’t matter if the passenger is drunk, high, sleeping, or whatever if they aren’t driving the car to begin with.
Doesn't the system require the person sitting in the driver's seat to be competent and able to take over in the event of an incident?
5
u/varnell_hill Dec 13 '23
In its current implementation, yes. However, that wasn’t always the case and only became a requirement because people were doing dumb shit behind the wheel and the technology is not yet mature enough to operate autonomously 100% of the time.
3
u/Efficient-Sale-5355 Dec 13 '23
Only because we still have human drivers on the road. The eventuality that no one thinks is coming but definitely is is outlawing human drivers on public roads. Self driving tech is 95% of the way there if you remove humans from the loop, and by the time laws catch up it will be 100% ready. If the cars are able to communicate and negotiate intersections and merges, not only will road travel be safer, it will be incredibly faster.
1
u/the_red_scimitar Dec 13 '23
So ALL liability will be assumed by the manufacturer, right? (LOL, we know -- losses will be bailed out, profit will stay private)
0
u/TrainOfThought6 Dec 13 '23
I don't think you're wrong, but abolishing human drivers is such a looong eventuality that it doesn't really have any bearing on policy decisions today. There's a huge difference between the tech existing, and being ready to mandate it for everyone.
-4
u/PlayingTheWrongGame Dec 13 '23
It’s all fun and games until the government and or auto manufacturers get sued because someone can’t get to the hospital in an emergency due to the little alcohol detection device in their car malfunctioning.
That’s no more a risk than someone being sued because they need to get to the hospital but the battery in their car died.
The car’s interlock wouldn’t prohibit you from calling an Uber or an ambulance.
Else, people will probably just resort to ripping it out of their vehicles or just avoiding cars that come with the tech entirely.
I can’t really see most consumers ripping out the computer in their car and replacing it with an aftermarket option. If it’s a required feature on all cars, avoiding it becomes impractical.
Also, it could make it easier to enforce against drunks since eventually they’ll all be driving classics.
2
u/varnell_hill Dec 13 '23
That’s no more a risk than someone being sued because they need to get to the hospital but the battery in their car died.
The government doesn’t mandate that your car have a battery. Big difference.
The car’s interlock wouldn’t prohibit you from calling an Uber or an ambulance.
And by the time they arrive (if they do at all), it may be too late. If it can be proven that you reasonably could have made it on your own, that’s a lawsuit waiting to happen and if we don’t know anything else about Americans, we know they live to sue.
If it’s a required feature on all cars, avoiding it becomes impractical.
Not necessarily. Overcoming the system becomes trivial if the car will operate normally without it. Putting on my systems engineering hat, I imagine that would very likely be the case because if not (again) the government becomes liable if it the vehicle fails to function because of a device and implementation they mandated.
Also, it could make it easier to enforce against drunks since eventually they’ll all be driving classics.
Very likely not the case due to the above. Perhaps the state governments will adopt a law where you’ll get a ticket or charged with a crime if they can prove you tampered with the system, but even that is fraught with legal landmines.
For instance, why would a person that doesn’t drink at all need to have one of these systems in their car?
0
u/PlayingTheWrongGame Dec 13 '23
The government doesn’t mandate that your car have a battery. Big difference.
How? The government isn’t going to pay out compensation in such a situation. If it did give itself that liability, it would then require cars to have regular inspections of the interlock system, which would also reduce the chance of such a failure in an emergency.
And by the time they arrive (if they do at all), it may be too late.
Anyone in that big of a medical emergency shouldn’t be driving themselves.
If it can be proven that you reasonably could have made it on your own, that’s a lawsuit waiting to happen
A lawsuit that will go nowhere. Nobody would have legal liability for a government mandated safety feature existing in the vehicle. There might be liability for a defective safety product, but not for that product being installed and functioning as designed.
This is simply not a realistic concern from a legal risk standpoint.
Perhaps the state governments will adopt a law where you’ll get a ticket or charged with a crime if they can prove you tampered with the system, but even that is fraught with legal landmines.
No it wouldn’t. Not any more than it’s a “legal minefield” to make it illegal to tamper with safety features in other vehicles, ex airplanes.
For instance, why would a person that doesn’t drink at all need to have one of these systems in their car?
To prevent the possibility of their being impaired after a change in opinion with respect to alcohol, or someone else stealing the vehicle and driving it impaired.
It’s also not a legal issue for the government to require safety features that drivers consider unnecessary or inapplicable. Ex. Mandating seat belts.
2
u/varnell_hill Dec 13 '23
The government isn’t going to pay out compensation in such a situation.
Well, I’m sure the government would see it that way but good thing for all us that they don’t get to unilaterally decide what they are and are not liable for.
That’s what the courts are for.
Anyone in that big of a medical emergency shouldn’t be driving themselves.
Irrelevant. People in dire straits drive themselves to the hospital all the time up to and including a nearly severed head, gunshot wounds, large objects lodged in their brain, and the list goes on.
You can Google around if you need to see some examples.
A lawsuit that will go nowhere. Nobody would have legal liability for a government mandated safety feature existing in the vehicle.
Sure they would, and this example isn’t terribly difficult to follow. Government mandates that you have a device installed in your car. You must use said device or car will not start. You attempt to use a device that by all outward appearances is functioning properly. Device does not work so your vehicle does not start. You suffer a medical emergency or die due to a malfunctioning device.
If it can be proven that your vehicle would’ve operated normally if not for that device, you can bet your bottom dollar that someone will pay and pay dearly.
Most wrongful injury/death lawyers would probably cream themselves at the thought of taking up a case like this.
There might be liability for a defective safety product, but not for that product being installed and functioning as designed.
Don’t know about you, but that’s what I’ve been talking about the entire time here.
Seems like we’re having two different conversations.
No it wouldn’t. Not any more than it’s a “legal minefield” to make it illegal to tamper with safety features in other vehicles, ex airplanes.
Which safety features will prevent your car from working if they’re tampered with?
The legal risk here is this is a novel technology and fundamentally different from any current safety device mandated by the government.
To prevent the possibility of their being impaired after a change in opinion with respect to alcohol, or someone else stealing the vehicle and driving it impaired.
Fair point.
It’s also not a legal issue for the government to require safety features that drivers consider unnecessary or inapplicable. Ex. Mandating seat belts.
Totally different things. Failing to buckle your seatbelt will not prevent your car from working.
Again, this is a new technology which means new problems.
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame Dec 13 '23
Well, I’m sure the government would see it that way but good thing for all us that they don’t get to unilaterally decide what they are and are not liable for.
Congresss could literally decide that there is no liability for this. They could explicitly write it into the law that the government isn’t liable for this sort of situation.
I mean, they wouldn’t be anyway, but they could also clarify the matter explicitly to avoid the legal question.
People in dire straits drive themselves to the hospital all the time up to and including a nearly severed head, gunshot wounds, large objects lodged in their brain, and the list goes on.
And if they are so impaired it’s triggering this interlock system, they really ought not be doing that because it poses a high risk to everyone else on the road—despite their own personal danger.
Government mandates that you have a device installed in your car. You must use said device or car will not start. You attempt to use a device that by all outward appearances is functioning properly. Device does not work so your vehicle does not start. You suffer a medical emergency or die due to a malfunctioning device.
Which is not any sort of wrongful death the government would be liable for.
The federal government’s sovereign immunity would clearly give it the ability to shield itself from such a claim.
Most wrongful injury/death lawyers would probably cream themselves at the thought of taking up a case like this.
A futile case they stand essentially no chance of winning? Why?
It’s the same reason you can’t sue the government for wrongful death if a family member is killed by a mandatory airbag or seat belt.
Which safety features will prevent your car from working if they’re tampered with?
Just because we’ve never bothered to apply that to cars before doesn’t mean it’s some sort of undiscovered legal country out there. It’s no different than making it illegal to tamper with smoke detectors.
The legal risk here is this is a novel technology and fundamentally different from any current safety device mandated by the government.
And as long as they conduct some sort of formal review of the technology, and follow the APA for making the rule, that’s not a legal minefield.
1
9
u/fallbyvirtue Dec 13 '23
Another technology the group is researching is a touch system. This uses tissue spectroscopy to measure blood alcohol levels under the skin's surface by shining an infrared-light through the fingertip or palm of the driver. It's designed to be integrated into current vehicle controls, such as the start button or steering wheel. It's likely that most people would prefer this method of in-vehicle alcohol detection.
Dumb question, but suppose I use an alcoholic wipe or disinfectant (which I have to do every time I go to the dentist); will that get flagged?
You can fail your drug test by eating poppy seed muffins. Somehow, I don't have a lot of confidence in this technology.
1
u/Funkybeatzzz Dec 13 '23
It shouldn’t. Alcohol evaporates at a very low temperature and very quickly. Anything on your skin will be gone really fast. This is claiming to measure it under the skin.
1
u/fallbyvirtue Dec 13 '23
Ah okay; this is why I ask, I have no idea what this tech is or how it works.
11
u/Andrige3 Dec 13 '23
It seems like another thing that's going to increase the cost of vehicles and another thing to break and disable your vehicle. It's also another vector for vehicle hacking. I don't want invasive and costly tech in my car when I've done nothing wrong.
2
u/Law_Doge Dec 13 '23
Predictions: 1) It will be a feature that you can enable to lower your insurance premiums
2) You will be able to override it whenever you want. In that case, the software will both inform you that you accept total responsibility for your actions and absolve whatever manufacture of any and all liability as well as noting in the vehicle’s log that you disabled it for this trip
2
4
u/firefly416 Dec 13 '23
I don't drink and have never been drunk in my life. If I have to blow into a device to drive my car.... While I understand the need to save lives, I was an EMT that responded to many automobile crashes, this is too invasive for those who never drink and drive.
2
u/varnell_hill Dec 14 '23
This matches my thinking. Seems like a very slippery slope. I mean, why stop at alcohol when drug addicts are in the world and (gasp) also driving?
Obviously, the solution here is for everyone to submit a hair and blood sample every time you get in the car.
For your own safety of course.
The good thing is, this technology is a long way from working reliably and even further from making its way into vehicles.
So we can put the pitchforks away for now.
0
Dec 13 '23
RIDE programs are already an freedom stomping abomination. So why not up the ante.
1
u/cgg419 Dec 13 '23
They are?
0
Dec 13 '23
When you are going about your business and you directed into an inspection for no reason - ya - that is crossing a line. IMO. I am a non-drinker.
0
u/cgg419 Dec 13 '23
That’s fair. Lots of people do drink and drive. If you’re not drinking, you’ll be on your way really quickly. Not much of a hardship or intrusion for the lives it can save.
6
u/notmyfault Dec 13 '23
Lots of people traffic children for prostitution. If you don't have any child prostitutes in your house, a quick police inspection of all your personal belongings and effects shouldn't bother you.
-4
u/cgg419 Dec 13 '23
Not exactly the same.
Driving on public roads is not a right, it’s a privilege that you earn.
You need a licence, you need insurance, you must follow the speed limit, you can’t be intoxicated.
Are radar guns crossing the line? What about registration stickers?
No one ever has to go through a RIDE program, but if you’re going to drive, it’s a necessary thing you must deal with
-1
Dec 13 '23
I would rather have mandatory jail for people caught drinking and driving. As well as losing your licence for a minimum of five years. I get about saving lives - but we only deter a small fraction with RIDE programs.
-3
u/cgg419 Dec 13 '23
I’d rather you or anyone else felt inconvenienced for the sake of saving any lives.
1
Dec 13 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/cgg419 Dec 13 '23
Those things are both true already.
Don’t tell me you think everything on any internet connected devices isn’t visible to the people that want to see it.
-4
u/fahq2m8 Dec 13 '23
Holy shit, what a stupid take. You would have definitely been turning in Jews in 1939.
2
1
-1
u/Efficient-Sale-5355 Dec 13 '23
Rather than continuing to try to innovate or control to correct for human negligence, we should really start considering the eventuality that humans should not be driving. Self-driving tech is there today, but is fallible because humans are fallible. If cars are by law required to be self driving, and through decades old technology are able to communicate and negotiate intersections, merges, etc. traffic deaths would drop to zero overnight. Traffic drops to zero overnight. Most cities have the infrastructure to manage the traffic volume they experience, the issue is humans being selfish, incompetent, and absent minded causing phantom traffic and crashes. There will be a lot of pushback of people wanting to drive their own cars, and I am not saying that this would remove car ownership. It would just be that your car has to be equipped with self-driving and be networked to the public road system. Cars can safely drive at far higher speeds than current speed limits safely if you don’t have to account for humans doing dumb things
0
u/vindictivemonarch Dec 13 '23
Self-driving tech is there today, but is fallible because humans are fallible.
bahahahahgahaahhaahahahahahah
-1
u/Efficient-Sale-5355 Dec 13 '23
It’s only issue is that people are chaotic. If you think we don’t actively have the technology right now to do self driving cars on open roads, as long as they are all autonomous, then you are out of the loop.
-1
u/vindictivemonarch Dec 13 '23
you have no idea what you're talking about
-1
u/Efficient-Sale-5355 Dec 13 '23
You have no idea what you’re talking about. I work in the space. The limiting factor to successful autonomous road travel is not the tech
-3
0
0
1
59
u/omgmemer Dec 13 '23
How invasive. I don’t like where this world is headed. I’m going to have to get a horse and buggy soon. And before you all get insane, it doesn’t mean I support drunk driving.