As soon as 2026, all new American-manufactured cars will feature anti-impairment technology to combat drunken driving. The reason for this shift is legal. One section of the recently signed infrastructure bill mandates the inclusion of the technology in vehicles, much of which has not been fully developed yet.
“To ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles,” the bill states in section 24220, also known as the RIDE Act.
The Senate included the mandate in the legislation at the behest of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. MADD celebrated when senators voted for the mandate in committee in June, though did not reply to the Washington Examiner when asked for comment.
“The RIDE Act is truly a reflection of the hard work by victims of drunk driving along with the incredible commitment by MADD’s champions in the Senate who share our determination to eliminate drunk driving forever,” said Alex Otte, MADD’s president, in a press release. “This vote today marks the beginning of the end of drunk driving in America.”
Initial support for the provision in the Senate was bipartisan, with Sens. Maria Cantwell, Ray Lujan, and Gary Peters bringing up the Democratic side of the aisle and Sens. Rick Scott and Shelley Moore Capito putting the Republican stamp on it.
Pre-COVID-19 traffic fatality statistics point to alcohol impairment for about one-third of all deaths, at an estimated negative economic impact of $44 billion.
“In 2019, there were 10,142 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities in the United States involving drivers with a blood alcohol concentration level of .08 or higher, and 68 percent of the crashes that resulted in those fatalities involved a driver with a blood alcohol concentration level of .15 or higher,” the bill said.
Adopting a framework put forward by MADD and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the legislation asserts that “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually.”
If true, that would amount to a 93% reduction in annual drunken driving deaths, using 2019 numbers as a baseline.
Critics of the anti-impairment tech mandate were not thick on the ground in Congress. Sarah Montalbano, a commentator for Young Voices and research associate at Alaska Policy Forum, speculated that part of that silence might have been out of self-preservation.
“It’s a bit politically dangerous to face off against MADD,” Montalbano told the Washington Examiner.
To the Washington Examiner and in an op-ed picked up by the American Spectator, Montalbano made the case that many members of Congress were not willing to make. She argued that the technology is speculative or unproven, that it has serious privacy problems, and that it could make the operations of vehicles worse for drivers.
The bill would require cars to have technology that can “passively and accurately detect” blood alcohol levels, determine if drivers are at or close to the legal limit, and, if so, “prevent or limit” the functioning of the vehicle.
And though MADD has made drunken driving the front-and-center issue, Montalbano pointed out that impairment, legally and technologically, “encompasses a broad range of behaviors.”
She gives as examples being too tired behind the wheel, being under the influence of some other substance than alcohol, being distracted for unspecified reasons, eating food, or calling on a cellphone.
“Obviously, no one should be driving in any of these states,” she said. “The question is, what does a technology capable of preventing this look like?”
There are several answers to that question, from air alcohol odor sensors and skin sensors on the vehicle’s controls. However, these are all technologies in various stages of development, and they all come with their own problems.
Montalbano offered as an example that “Nissan’s concept car using air alcohol sensors was tripped by inebriated passengers.” If that becomes the standard, designated driving could become much more difficult.
One bit of anti-impairment technology that does exist and that likely will find its way into all American cars if this law is implemented is driver-facing cameras.
Cars of the future will have to “keep a digital eye on their drivers — and figure out whether or not they’re in any condition to drive,” explained Montalbano. She admitted that it “sounds well-intentioned” — but so do many things on paper.
Because the mandate deals with technology that is not fully baked yet, Congress has issued more guidelines than clear guidance.
The secretary of transportation has three years to issue a rule about what specific technology will be mandated. Automakers have three years after the issuance of a rule to comply.
Delays are allowed if technological development stalls. However, in that event, Secretary Pete Buttigieg or his successors will have to send annual progress reports to Congress explaining what is taking so long.
Anti-impairment technology in vehicles could also be rendered moot by other technological developments happening simultaneously. Self-driving cars continue to be tested. If they can get out of beta, self-driving cars would be close to the ultimate anti-impairment device. Instead of drunken driving, inebriated car owners could be piloted home by their vehicles.
Montalbano would like the privacy implications of that development much better than the technology that Congress is mandating.
“Self-driving technology would likely have to incorporate many cameras anyway — but potentially not a driver-focused one, as there wouldn’t really be a driver to monitor,” she told the Washington Examiner.
