Buried in the massive 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act were a few lines that called for installing a system in all new cars starting in 2026 that would detect whether the driver was intoxicated, and if so, Prevent the car from starting and even stop it if it is already running.
The technology was immediately – and appropriately – dubbed a “kill switch” by people concerned about things like personal privacy, the right to move around the country at will, and that the system – and its collected data – would be “accessible”. Or not” say, by a government agency.
Another question was – how will it work?
Well, at least the last question has been answered: it can’t/won’t happen by the 2026 deadline, probably never and definitely not.
The technology doesn’t exist.
This fact became clear earlier this week when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” on the subject on Tuesday (somewhere, a bureaucrat just got wind of it ) And when NHTSA Acting Administrator Ann Carlson testified Wednesday before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (there goes another set of fans) — (click for 2 hours, 39 minutes).
Carlson acknowledged that the technology to “passively” determine a driver’s intoxication status does not yet exist, although he pointed to some “promising” possibilities being researched. Carlson said it was important for NHTSA to create a system that essentially eliminates the possibility of “false positives.”
Even if whatever system is built has an accuracy rate of 99.9%, that would mean about a million errors occurring every day across the country, considering there are approximately a billion car trips.
This translates to about 12 wrong “Sorry, but I won’t let you drive because I think you’re drunk” car stops every second.
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) – Those who tried but failed to pass an amendment to end the program a few weeks ago said at the hearing that this possibility — and the fact that the technology doesn’t yet exist — makes the entire effort futile.
“It’s a wish, not a plan,” Massey said.
And even NHTSA’s “Advance Notice…” seems to support that statement. As Carlson noted in his testimony, it begs questions about how to make it work – a lot of questions.
The notice states, “Private and public researchers have also made significant progress on technologies that are able to capture and measure driver position and performance (e.g., hands on steering wheel, visual gaze direction, lane position) “ “However, using these technologies for drunk and impaired driving detection and prevention remains a significant challenge.”
Beyond drunk driving, NHTSA has decided to include drowsy and district driving detection as part of the system. However, “Due to the immaturity of the technology and lack of testing protocols, drunk driving is not being considered in this notice,” so feel free to light up that crack pipe one more time before unlocking your car.
NHTSA also wants to know if it’s a good idea in the first place, asking “(h)ow how would a person impaired by alcohol react if their vehicle won’t start, and how should/should this be considered?” should be done?” Will some individuals decide to walk to their destination on the road, increasing the risk of being hit by another vehicle?
There is also the possibility that keeping a drunk driver off the road might pose other risks to the driver? For example, this may result in an intoxicated person being stranded for hours late at night and being susceptible to being a victim of crime or environmental conditions (e.g., weather). Or a camper under the influence of alcohol may need to use their vehicle to escape a rapidly approaching wildfire or environmental conditions (weather).
As far as the system is concerned, there are several possibilities for how – and when – it will work. For example, for blood-alcohol detection, a steering wheel or ignition switch or gear shift can be fitted with an infrared skin reader to test the driver for alcohol in his system upon contact. . According to NHTSA, this would be part of a “passive” system (as required by law) because the driver would have to do these things anyway when starting the vehicle.
But there are problems with those passive systems too – for example, using hand sanitizer (imagine that during COVID…well, you can’t leave your house anyway, so…).
Since it is “active”, the driver is not supposed to blow directly into the device, but NHTSA wonders about the idea of measuring breath passively. To its credit, the NHTSA specifically highlights the problem of passive systems that pick up odors or even spilled alcohol from a passenger (note – trust me, a former bartender As far as I can tell this would be a problem for anyone working in the restaurant industry.)
Other considerations for determining someone’s level of intoxication, somnolence (drowsiness), or lethargy (distraction) include monitoring pupil dilation, determining the driver’s proper line of sight, speech patterns (“Official , What seems to be the problem?””) and even the time of day – should the system be set to work only between 6 pm and 3 am when, for example, drunk driving Most driving accidents occur?
The notice also raises questions about individual characteristics of the driver – for example, if the driver has lazy eyes, how can the system know this? Also, the notice acknowledges that “high functioning” alcoholics perform very differently from other non-regular drinkers, even when they have the same amount of alcohol in their systems, which breaks the prescribed algorithm.
A note on drunk driving statistics – In 1982, about 50% of all motor vehicle deaths were caused by drunk driving. It’s now 30% and NHTSA admits that distracted driving (stop texting!!) is vastly underreported as a cause of crashes.
These are potential issues related to being able to start the car – as far as the car deciding whether you’ve drunk enough water while driving, that’s another – potentially extremely dangerous – matter.
Since false positives may occur in start-up operations, “Second confirmation of driver
Impairment will be required from the driver monitoring system. Measures of driver performance, such as gaze, lane weaving, etc., will be the primary indicators of impairment and evidence of alcohol will be used as supplemental indicators for alcohol impairment.
Although this won’t “ideally” happen, it does mean that the car may decide to shut off while moving.
This is where the term “kill switch” comes into play again. Despite every official “fact checker” saying that the system is not a “kill switch”, it apparently is because it would be able to stop a moving car.
Earlier this year, Robert Strassburger, president and CEO of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, which is involved in a public-private partnership with NHTSA to develop alcohol detection systems for vehicles, claimed to The Associated Press that the system “It has nothing to do with giving law enforcement access to the kill switch” and he told USA Today That “[n]othing in the infrastructure bill grants law enforcement or third parties access to any information on vehicles or control of any technology installed in vehicles.”
First of all, the issue of third party access is a lie – even to update the system, it must happen. Second, “fact checkers”, as is their habit, pull a bait-and-switch to render the term “kill switch” useless by limiting the concept to third-party activation only. That would, in essence, be a “murder switch” not a kill switch, which, by any part of the definition, involves something in your car that will stop it without your permission.
The NHTSA notice makes it clear that such a system would be able to stop a car in some way. Here are some ideas from the notice as to how exactly this will play out:
lump home mode – Once impairment (or disability) is detected, the vehicle speed is reduced for a certain period of time. Adaptive cruise control can be turned on with a longer interval setting to prevent further collisions with other vehicles. The system can warn the driver that the driver needs to leave the highway. (Potential downside – car going 15 mph on the freeway.)
stay in lane – Depending on the vehicle manufacturer, the vehicle reduces speed and eventually stops in the lane after a certain amount of time of driver inattention (usually when the Level 2 driving automation system is engaged), engages emergency flashers and Easily opens doors to enter vehicle. This presents a new hazard to motorists approaching a stopped vehicle, and presents a different type of hazard to occupants of the stopped vehicle (i.e., the original hazard was the drunk driver, but now it The hazard is potentially affecting other motorists). Some SAE Level 2 driving automation systems use this feature if the driver becomes unresponsive and some may even call for assistance.
Slow lane (right lane) or pull over on the shoulder – Some automakers have introduced more advanced concept or production vehicles that can pull over to the side of the road or into the “slow lane” if a driver’s impairment (or incompetence) is detected when a Level 2 system is engaged. This requires the vehicle to be equipped with lane changing capability, where a vehicle must be able to sense whether there is (or is approaching) a vehicle or other road user in its blind spot in order to change lanes. Modern vehicles increasingly have technology to detect lane lines and blind spots, and to automate lane changes under certain circumstances.
The notice indirectly references “privacy” concerns, but more often addresses “consumer acceptance” and how people will attempt to circumvent/disable the system.
Little-Known Fact: Under federal law, a car owner can circumvent security systems with a “kill switch.” From the notice:
The Safety Act also contains a “make inoperative” provision, which prohibits certain entities from intentionally modifying or disabling any part of a device or design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with the applicable FMVSS (Safety System). Those entities include vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, rental companies and repair businesses. In particular, the “deactivate” prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. While NHTSA encourages individual vehicle owners not to reduce the safety of their vehicles or equipment by removing, modifying, or disabling safety systems, the Safety Act does not prevent them from doing so.
A security system is being introduced that every mechanically inclined person (count me; I’m asking to disable A car safety system would be like asking me to eat a walking rhinoceros with chopsticks – it won’t happen) Legally disabling it would reduce the safety impact – and therefore the point – of said system.
While it’s clear the system won’t be ready for a 2026 rollout, may never work, it’s incredibly invasive no matter how “passive”, and a Trojan to get a piece of government technology into cars. To prepare for things like horse-drawn vehicle miles traveled (VMT) tax – https://californiaglobe.com/fr/vehicle-miles-traveled-tax-gets-a-killer-boost/ It’s not dead yet.
Despite the 2026 deadline, the law still allows NHTSA to take the next ten years to get it right.
Just in case you were worried.
Oh, and here’s the link to the entire “Advance Notice…” Feel free to read it or not, but if you want to comment on the project you can find out how – and who to call – 99 page notice on pages 2 and 3: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-12/anprm-advanced-impaired-driving-prevention-technology-2127-AM50-web-version-12-12-23.pdf
For those who want to know more about Ann Carlson – a climate expert from UCLA who once wrote that most people “could benefit from a simpler life” but “will not make dramatic behavior changes unless forced.” “- see this link: https://freebeacon.com/energy/meet-the-biden-climate-official-who-wants-to-force-you-to-live-a-simpler-life/
