U.S. auto safety regulators say they have taken the first step toward requiring devices in vehicles that prevent drunk or impaired driving.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced on Tuesday that it is starting the process to put a new federal safety standard in place requiring the technology in all new passenger vehicles.

Such devices were required in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that was passed by Congress in 2021.

The agency says an advance notice of proposed rule making will help it gather information about the state of technology to detect impaired driving. The regulation would set standards for the devices once technology is mature, NHTSA said in a statement.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -18
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No it’s alcohol sensors on the steering wheel, like the scram bracelet.

    It’s about $2 in sensors and the technology is 80 years old. It can wired up as an on/off switch, it doesn’t require telephony

    The fact that it hasn’t been done already should be criminal in itself.

    • @surewhynotlem
      link
      121 year ago

      That’s what we need. A car that shuts off on the highway.

      Or people leaving their cars running while they go get hammered.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It can take continuous readings you know.

        And idk why it’d shut off on the highway. Don’t drink and drive. Just about everybody agrees that’s the move, I’m not alone in that sentiment.

        This is already tried and true, non invasive tech. It just takes skin on the wheel, throughout the entire drive.

        I don’t understand the push back, seriously. Enlighten me. I’m all ears.

        • @surewhynotlem
          link
          11 year ago

          False positives could be deadly, and bypassing it is trivial (duct tape). So it adds a little amount of risk for no real reward and slightly more cost.

    • FaceDeer
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      I used to work in an office that was next to a beer canning plant. Some days when the weather was just right the car park would reek of alcohol. Going to be interesting for the people currently working there when cars refuse to start under such conditions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Hey looky that, humanities been here before. Back in the olden days they used to have problems with air quality around factories too, just like you’re saying, because that’s what it is.

        The robber barons were able to put up smokestacks, sometimes hundreds of feet high, so the town wouldn’t be buried and blackened under coal ash. Simple elegant solution, besides not polluting in the first place, I guess.

        Regardless, the hypothetical problem would exist today with blowers on cars yet those people seem to manage just fine. None of this is any kind of stretch, so I mean, it kind of feels like you’re throwing a disingenuous argument over on my side, like astroturfing for the police union trying to protect their main source of income (which, at least in my city, theyvr been caught red-handed doing, more than once)

        • FaceDeer
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Are you seriously accusing me of being a “thin blue line” supporter? I don’t think you realize just how offensive that is to me, it’s akin to asking me “been to any good Klan meetings lately?” I am struggling to keep this response civil.

          Also, do you actually know what the false positive rate is on blowers in cars? Do you actually know how well people “seem to manage just fine?” Or would you dismiss any problems they encounter with “I have a hard time caring about the problems of a convicted drunk driver.” Because this legislation is basically going to treat every single person like they’re a convicted drunk driver, so maybe you should start caring about their problems.

          Seriously, this law proposes putting a robotic policeman who cannot be reasoned with and has no awareness of context in control of everybody’s car. That’s not a good thing. What other elements of a preemptive fully automated police state would you be okay with? Filters in cameras to make sure nobody takes “illegal” photos? Maybe recalibrate the alcohol sensors to measure hormones and prevent pregnant women from crossing state lines into anyplace where abortions are legal? You may think some of those ideas are good and others are not, but now we’re just haggling over the price.

          I am a teetotaler and I hate drunk drivers with a burning passion. Closely rivalled by my hatred of corrupt cops. This isn’t about any of those people. This is about treating everyone like they’re unable to make decisions for themselves and must be kept under constant surveillance. This is not a good place for society to be heading.

    • @reversebananimals
      link
      71 year ago

      I think we should just ban people from driving completely.

      Its free and people have been dying in vehicles for over 80 years. We can just stop selling cars, it doesn’t require telephony.

      The fact that driving hasn’t been banned already should be criminal in itself.

      /s

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        It’s a thought.

        Not a very helpful one but it is one option.

        Seriously, I can see commuters or shoppers being banned from driving downtown in big cities, and I don’t even think it’s a terrible idea. Have to stop at a park and ride and take a train or tram in. Which would allow the roads to be reduced to a single lane making room for public seating, food trucks, fountains/statues, stages, squares, greenery and other park features put in in the torn up lanes. Making it the kind of place people actually WANT to be in. Only have emergency services, delivery and tradesmen on the road.