The in-car technology used by companies like Ford and GM to ensure drivers pay attention to the road has come a long way. But it's simply not ready to help prevent or mitigate the harm caused by drunk driving, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
That assessment is included in a new 99-page “advance notice of proposed rulemaking” that the agency technology-2127-AM50-web-version-12-12-23.pdf” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>released Tuesday, a stop of sorts on the way to issuing regulations that would require technology in cars that could recognize when a driver has been drinking alcohol.
NHTSA is now asking for help determining what technologies should be built into cars to help mitigate it or prevent it altogether, in part because the agency says there are no commercially available options. Once the notice is published in the Federal Register, the public will have 60 days to submit comments.
NHTSA says it evaluated 331 driver monitoring systems and found none commercially available that can adequately identify alcohol impairment. While he noted that there are three DMS systems that claim to detect alcohol impairment, they are still in the research and development phase. (He did not name those systems.)
However, driver monitoring is not the only option NHTSA has at its disposal. NHTSA undertook this mission after President Biden tasked the agency with finding a solution in his bipartisan infrastructure bill in 2021. That bill tasked NHTSA with developing a federal motor vehicle safety standard that could determine whether a driver was impaired by passively monitoring him, or by passively (and accurately) detecting whether his blood alcohol concentration is too high, or a combination of both.
Accuracy is key, and based on NHTSA's findings, blood alcohol screening technology is a more viable short-term response. After all, dozens of states already require breathalyzer-based alcohol ignition interlocks for repeat offenders or those with high BAC levels. But this technology is considered “active,” meaning the driver has to proactively interact with the technology, which goes against the law's passive requirement.
There may be another option.
NHTSA has been working since 2008 with the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS) on a public-private partnership called Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS). As part of that program, DADSS has developed breath- and touch-based methods to detect driver impairment. The breath-based method would also be considered active and therefore not a starter, but since the touch sensor is designed to be integrated into something the driver has to touch to operate the vehicle (such as the push-to-start button start up). , NHTSA says it “provisionally determines that such a touch sensor could be considered passive.”
Robert Strassburger, CEO of ACTS, says he believes the touch sensor may be the best way forward in the short term, given the restriction on the technology being passive; he's eager to see what the public thinks.
“That will be an area of interest for me when I read the comments that eventually come forward. How do people feel about it? Because it all comes down to consumer acceptance,” she says. “I think one of the things we want to make sure we don't do is ask drivers to learn a new way to interact with their car.”
Time matters. Not only does drunk driving kill thousands of people and cost the country billions each year, but the final regulation must be standardized by November 2024.
That goal could be difficult to achieve due to the number of questions NHTSA raises in its notice. The agency raises all sorts of thorny questions beyond asking for more information about driver monitoring or the definition of “passive.” For example, if a touch sensor is installed on the start/stop button, how do you ensure that it is the driver who pushes? If the system determines that a driver is too drunk to start the car, should it prevent the car from starting? What happens if the driver tries to escape from a forest fire?
“This is a very, very complicated regulation,” says Strassburger. “There are a lot of details and the agency needs to get it right.”
