Infrastructure

The Infrastructure Bill Requires New Cars To Come With Unproven Drunk Driving Detection Technology

As early as 2026, new cars will have to come equipped with "advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology."

|

The new car you buy will have to come equipped with a futuristic breathalyzer, should the bipartisan infrastructure proposal currently working its way through Congress become law.

Included in the 2,700-page bill is a provision directing the U.S. secretary of transportation to issue regulations for new motor vehicles requiring them to come equipped with "advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology."

This new prevention technology would have to "passively detect" whether a driver is impaired and "passively" measure his blood alcohol concentration to see if it's above the 0.08 percent limit set by federal regulations. If this technology does determine a driver is impaired or over the limit, it will have to be able to stop someone from driving his vehicle.

There's been a steady bipartisan effort in Congress over the past few years to require new cars to come with this kind of technology.

In 2019, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D–Mich.) introduced the Honoring Abbas Family Legacy to Terminate (HALT) Drunk Driving Act—named after a Michigan family killed by a drunk driver—that is nearly identical to the provision in the infrastructure bill.

"We have the technology to prevent drunk driving and save lives, and it's long past time that we use it," said Dingell in a press release in March when she reintroduced the HALT Act alongside sponsors Reps. Kathleen Rice (D–N.Y.) and David McKinley (R–W. Va.).

Earlier this year, Dingell's bill was folded into House Democrats' $715 billion surface transportation bill, the INVEST in America Act. Its inclusion in the bipartisan infrastructure bill only increases its odds of passing.

The legislation nevertheless leaves a lot of details to be ironed out at a later date. That includes precisely what type of anti–drunk driving technology car manufacturers might be required to install.

Already people convicted of drunk driving offenses in some states are required to have ignition interlock devices that detect alcohol on drivers' breath. These devices are expensive to install, however, and often require regular service and calibration.

They also seemingly wouldn't be "passive" methods of detecting one's blood alcohol content, so they probably wouldn't fit the requirements for this technology in the infrastructure bill.

Car and Driver notes that Nissan experimented with other types of detection technology, including a sensor in the gear stick that would detect alcohol in the driver's sweat and air sensors that would detect alcohol in the cabin.

The latter device, NBC News reports, proved ineffective because it can be tripped up by inebriated passengers.

"I don't think that will be as easy as people might think," Carla Bailo, CEO of the Center for Automotive Research, told NBC.

Perhaps recognizing that a lot of this technology isn't available for prime time, both Dingell's bill and the drunk driving portions of the infrastructure bill provide for a lot of time between now and when any new regulations might go into effect.

Should the big infrastructure bill become law, regulators will have three years to come up with new standards car manufacturers will have to meet. Automakers will then have a minimum of two years, and as long as three, to come into compliance with these new standards.

So, new cars won't have to come installed with the breathalyzer of the future until 2026 at the earliest.

The infrastructure bill also gives the transportation secretary the ability to delay issuing final regulations by an additional three years if he or she determines that the new technology being mandated isn't "reasonable, practicable, and appropriate."

That could push out implementation until 2030, or potentially even later. The text of the bill says that, if a final regulation doesn't come down in 10 years, the transportation secretary will have to submit a report to House and Senate's commerce committees on what's taking so long.

Giving so much time for these regulations to be implemented seems sensible enough given the detection technology being mandated is either untested or still on the drawing board.

At the same time, by mandating cars come with features that haven't been invented yet, Congress is ceding a lot of power to bureaucrats to craft whatever rules they want and implement them whenever they see fit.

It also means that car manufacturers will have to devote a lot of time and money to developing these drunk driving detection features. That could come at the expense of the development of more effective, but unmandated, safety features. Requiring cars to have cameras installed that monitor a driver's performance also raises some worrying privacy concerns.

Should the infrastructure bill pass, we'll have a good 10 years of bureaucratic rule-making to gauge how serious those concerns are. Perhaps the whole issue will be moot by then when all new cars also happen to be self-driving.

NEXT: A New Study Finds That Reducing Pain Medication Is Associated With an Increased Risk of Overdose and Suicide

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. But after 2020, not THAT crazy.

      1. It’s the modern V chip.

        You remember that amazing piece of technology that everyone who bought a television had to pay extra for, but that almost nobody ever used? But this will add a hell of a lot more to the price of a car.

        But, you know, if it saves just one child!

        1. What if the child is drunk?

          1. Fantastic work-from-home 0pportunity for every0ne… Work for three t0 eight a day and start getting paid inSFDd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

            See……………VISIT HERE

            1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

              See……………VISIT HERE

              1. Fantastic work-from-home opportun1ty for everyone… Work for three to eight a day and start getting paid inScd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a m0nth… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

                See……………VISIT HERE

            2. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable HNb but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. Learn more about it here…

              This is what I do……………. VISIT HERE

          2. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months.KJH I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now. Your Success is one step away Copy and Paste —-> ­­­­Visit Here

          3. The infrastructure bill is a socialist/leftist dream. All the bills they ever wanted, wrapped up in one bill called “infrastructure.” What a great idea, apparently. And reason libertarians don’t really care. Not that much. As long as they are free to take drugs and bang prostitutes. Seems the future really is a “brave new world.”

        2. why not mandate cars only go 35 MPH and have only 47 horsepower and be made of rubber.

          1. 47 horsepower? Nobody needs 47 different kinds of horsepower.

          2. Exactly. Most fatal accidents occur above 45 mph, and occur in head-on collisions. So why not limit cars to 35 mph, and only let people drive one direction each day?

          3. No.
            1 hp. Electric. Negative carbon emissions. All vehicles required to have the latest pride flag emblazoned on the side (the one with 11 colors, and triangles). You get an insurance deduction if you have pink, green, or blue hair when you drive it. Vehicle comes standard with a compartment for weed, dildos, and a specialty dictionary with the most commonly used, government approved, 10,000 words and how to use them.

            1. You also get an insurance deduction if you change genders and fall into any one of the 54 known gender self reassignments. The savings will allow you to have a gender reveal party and set fire to the houses around you.

        3. > “The text of the bill says that, if a final regulation doesn’t come down in 10 years, the transportation secretary will have to submit a report to House and Senate’s commerce committees on what’s taking so long.”

          Report: “You asked for something impossible and stupid. Please ask someone with a higher than Celsius scale room temperature IQ to review future bills.”

          1. That leaves nearly everybody in congress out.

    2. It’s crazier than that, they also want Uber out of business.

    3. But no more mean tweets!

    4. Not as insane as the mean tweets! That’s the important thing here. Who cares about some intrusive anti-libertarian tech before drive. We don’t have mean tweets any more!

      1. If they put one on Nancy pelosi front door she could never leave her house tho.

        1. That is silly. She will bill the taxpayers for a driver.

    5. You’re driving home on the interstate one afternoon and gradually traffic comes to a standstill. On your phone or radio you hear the traffic reporter announce that now 12 cars have been immobilized because their drivers have triggered their breathalyzer restrictor. Good luck getting home before midnight.

      1. They all stop because they drove past a distillery.

  1. Typical far left nonsense, what drives them to such authoritarian extremes.

    1. Far left? What the hell are you even talking about? Did you read the article? Not only is the bill bipartisan with a Republican sponsor, but both Dems are center/center right in the party. I get that you’re libertarian, but you can’t be a total moron.

      1. The provision is not bipartisan you whinging DNC party hack. The article references th earlier HALT Act and previous “bipartisan” efforts. Also the Overton Window for a modern “centrist” Democrat sits around the Pol Pot range.

        1. Your forget that 90% of DNC propaganda (and it’s sheeple followers) is blaming everyone else for exactly what the DNC is doing.

          – Blame for the Great Recession and Great Depression
          – Blame for Social Security, Commie-Education, Federal Reserve
          – Blame for Inflation, Greed, Crime, Theft, etc, etc, etc…

          Yet; Only 5-minutes background checking proves it was always the DNC’s doings but DNC fanboys don’t care to look; It’s Gangs-of-the-hood mentality cheer-leading. The very foundation of Democracy (i.e. [WE] mob rules!)

      2. Both Rs and Ds publicly oppose drunk driving and privately give it the okay. I detest drunk driving, but I strongly oppose this law. People really seem to look onto government as some sort of idealized parent. We’re all going to realize we can just put a sticker or a balloon on the air intake for the device to disable it on the first day it annoys us because we can’t start our car after we disinfect our hands with alcohol-based hand sanitizer.

        1. People really seem to look onto government as some sort of idealized parent.

          Not sure its the people. Congress believes they and their constituency(the Bureaucracy) believe they are. Vaccinate your 16 year old daughter? The govt knows better than the parent. Cant make your rent? go to your congressman, not your family.

          1. Have you read M4E’s posts in this thread? He definitely misses his daddy.

    2. Will disproportionately affect r*tarded w*men who can’t drive. Is this okay?

  2. Government has rarely operated in the realm we know as “reality”. This is just another case of King Canute commanding the tide to go out.

    1. Except Canute knew he couldn’t do it and was illustrating the limits of temporal power. Washington doesn’t have that kind of insight.

      1. This is the important aspect of the situation.

        1. casual sex coventry is probably the best web platform for free chat with local girls in UK, so check out and enjoy

  3. So it shall be written. So it shall be done.

  4. And of course this wonderful technology will suck so bad that it makes automobiles undrivable. Which, I suspect, is the point.

    Betcha there will be an exemption for government vehicles.

    1. have to pinpoint it more CONGRESSIONAL GOVERNMENT VEHICLES.

    2. Uh, we already have this tech in CA for DUI “repeat offenders”, and it costs $100/month to have it calibrated. And it’s six months in jail if you’re caught tampering with it.

      But I’m sure that won’t be the case with this new government plan, because we’re not criminals, right?

    3. The Ted Kennedy amendment

  5. There’s an entire industry build around drunk drivers. Mandated treatment, counseling, and monitoring. Asset forfeiture and fines. Who knows what else. Those people are going to lose their business. So I expect that the car will not only refuse to start if the driver is drunk, but also lock itself and call the cops. That way the courts can get their fines and stolen loot while the cronies continue to get paid.

    1. The fact there is an entire industry addressing drunk drivers suggest the problem is big enough to generate that industry. Question then is how do we address the problem?

      1. Everyone should have to travel by government run mass transit?

      2. Rent seeking is a thing. The fact that this industry exist is not evidence that drunk driving is a really bad problem. I’m not saying it’s not a problem, but it’s pretty low on the list of dangers in the world at this point.
        The problem sarc brings up is that there are a bunch of companies that make more money the more people are convicted of DUI. So they have a great incentive to lobby for more and stricter laws and more requirements for involuntary treatment, etc. And they wouldn’t want their racket to dry up if people can’t drive fucked up anymore.

        1. M4E is truly the dumbest poster here.

          1. No, that’s sarcasmic by a long shot.

            1. Sarc’s stupidity increases because he’s emotionally broken. Strictly by IQ? That’s M4E.

        2. ” And they wouldn’t want their racket to dry up if people can’t drive fucked up anymore.”

          More like they wouldn’t want their racket to dry up if people stopped getting arrested. That’s why I think these interlocks will be set up to automatically call the police, and maybe even lock the doors. That way the cops can arrest the person for attempted DUI, impound the vehicle, collect fines, require them to purchase treatment, etc.

        3. I live in a city of slightly less than 0.5M people. There is at least one story of week in my local paper involving a fatal traffic accident and alcohol is frequently cited as a factor. Yes there are accidents on the streets everyday, but the ones with fatalities frequently involve alcohol. Is it the biggest problem, no. Is it a big problem, yes.

          1. Sounds like your city should address that without the federal government doing some one size fits all authoritarian bullshit that effects people that don’t live in your little city. Have you bothered looking into why this is happening? Have you talked to your local police? Have you gone to a city council meeting? Maybe the police should figure out where drunk people that are killing people weekly are coming from?

            Can you comprehend that this Republic is full of different places with different issues? And the feds getting involved probably won’t actually fix the problem in your city, but will just give them more power over people that don’t live somewhere where drunks kill people weekly?

            Are you capable of learning that there’s a whole big world out there that’s different from where you live?

          2. I’m with you. We should punish every motor vehicle driver with higher cost and higher regulation because of a few bad actors. I mean, if it saves just one kid…

          3. If there’s an accident caused by excessive speed and the driver is drunk, it’s reported as a drunk driving, not excessive speed.

            If the drunk is hit head on by a sober but stupid teen, it’s reported as drunk driving, not a sober but stupid teen.

            If a drunk is driving fine and a meteor falls from the sky, hitting the drunk, it’s reported as drunk driving, not a freak accident.

            But if the driver is on Alzheimer’s meds or antihistamines or antidepressants, it’s reported as just a sad accident.

            Drunk driving is not the problem. Lazy reporting is the problem.

        4. what about detecting pot smoking inability to drive. or medicinal impairment, or angry soccer moms?

        5. Many state legislatures were lobbied and agreed to make it a crime, or at minimum a 2 year license suspension, to refuse blood tests/searches and seizures.

          Damned if you do damned if you don’t.

      3. When did a police state become “moderate,” fascist?????

        1. M4E isn’t moderate, he just lives in a liberal bubble.

      4. The way we address the problem, obviously, is that we outlaw the political party of Ted Kennedy and Beto O’Rourke for its historic and continued social acceptance of drunk drivers, send its donors and registered members to labor camps, give all power to the party strongly favored by teetotalers like the Mormons and Southern Baptists, and install teetotaler Donald Trump as President.

        If you’re against any of that, you’re in favor of drunk driving.

      5. No. The problem has been inflated to help the industry. Look at the statistics. It used to be “accidents caused by Alcohol”. Now it is “accidents involving Alcohol”. I had an accident in 2014. Since there was no property damage and no one was hurt, we just called the Police, made the report over the phone and got a Report Number. A few weeks later I’m upping my liability insurance, when my Insurance agent asks me some specifics about the accident. I tell him and asked why? He showed me a copy of the report. The “Alcohol Related” box was checked. That is the “Default” setting on the Police computer.

  6. My vehicle is 20 years old, low mileage, running like a champ, no oil burnt or lost at the semi-annual oil changes. I don’t need all that crap on new cars. Do I buy something new by 2025 to avoid this shit, or take a (good) chance on it lasting another 10-20 years, and finding a good used pre-2026 car?

    Fuck government. Fuck statists. Fuck the snoopy Karens of all genders.

    1. I drive a rusted out 07 caravan. The check engine and ABS lite have shown brightly since the day I bought it with 180k on the odometer. Starts and runs at 20 below zero and 100 above. Everything I need to work still works. It is guaranteed that this technology will leave a whole bunch of single moms immobile in their driveways while trying to get their kids to school and make it to work on time. With any luck I’ll be dead and gone before I have to deal with this crap.

    2. 2010 creampuff with 90K miles. If I retire in a few years and suddenly drive only 5K / year, I’ll be driving this as long as I can still get gasoline….. or until some Masshole runs a light and totals this one too!

    3. The value of my used cars just went up. I’d say buy as many cars as you can the model year before the requirement goes into effect. If you can find any.

      1. Jay Leno will be our new ruler.

    4. Don’t worry. It’ll take maybe five minutes before the first instructions for bypassing alcohol-detection systems hit the Internet.

    5. Buy something newer now, preferably pre-2017 when they started putting in all the lane assist and collision avoidance stuff that takes over driving from you on a whim.

      Preferably diesel so you have more fuel options when they start forcing everyone to drive electric.

      1. what do you have against lane assist? it is actually useful. But yes it costs money

        1. “what do you have against lane assist?”

          Personally I don’t like anything that takes control away from me. I’m the Driver, I’m ultimately responsible for anything that the vehicle does while I’m driving it. If the manufacturer wants to take responsibility for what he vehicle does on it’s own, I’m willing to talk.

  7. Much like with speed cameras, this is a case of potentially useful technology running headlong into overly restrictive laws.

    This might be a useful thing if the BAC cutoff were like .15, but if you’re telling people they won’t be able to start their new car after having a few beers at dinner with the wife then there’s going to be a sizable backlash.

    1. Fear not, my friend. Because at the same time the government will be mandating technology that will make your car non-drivable After a mere two beers, The government will also be passing laws mandating that Uber and Lyft treat their drivers as employees, not contractors, thus driving up the cost of those services if not eliminating them entirely. So you will not be able to hire a rideshare service to get you home.

  8. Maybe I just want people to die….

    1. I have a list…

      1. They surely won’t be missed.

  9. Is this going to add another $1000 to the price of a new car? Why does Congress hate poor people so much?

    1. Because they’re drunk all the time, bit not in a cool, classy way.

      1. Those assholes all have drivers.

        Except apparently Ted Kennedy.

    2. The Constitution gives the federal government the ability for this WHERE? Oh let me guess “commerce amongst the states” somehow reads to regulate not ‘just’ the exchange of commerce but every single part of a manufactured vehicle???

      It’s amazing how politicians can read invisible ink where no ink is found.

      1. FYI: Commerce definition, *an interchange* of goods or commodities
        NOT the ‘goods’ themselves.

  10. Included in the 2,700-page bill is a provision directing the U.S. secretary of transportation to issue regulations for new motor vehicles requiring them to come equipped with “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.”

    This is outrageous! Nearly 3K pages of pseudo-legislation and nothing requiring vehicles to come equipped with “advanced masturbation or receiving oral sex in the driver’s seat while the car is in motion technology”?

    1. Cars should be required to come with catheters. Someone might find them useful.

      1. I am more interested in finding more information about the advanced masturbation or receiving oral sex in the driver’s seat while the car is in motion technology mentioned above. For a friend of course.

        1. If it’s after dark, just ask – – – – – – – –

        2. Back in the day that information was readily available written in sharpie on the men’s room wall. 867-5309 as I recall.

          1. I tried calling that number several times when I was around 11 or 12. As soon as I asked for Jenny, they’d say wrong number or just swear and hang up. It was only later that realized the song never specified the area code.

            1. 202. Everyone knows the most widely advertised whores work in DC.

    2. We should mandate that any proposed legislation be under 40 pages , double spaced and capitalized. that way we could all read it and understand it. no bullet points or references to 120 year old laws that cannot be found, no A,B,C subtexts alluding to other arcane laws.

      1. I’m not sure it would work. Congress would be just as happy to vote on bills that are written up as PowerPoint slides with five vague bullet points, and then let the President and bureaucrats fill in thousands of pages of regulations implementing the details.

        1. Dee doesn’t know about the special interest groups that actually write legislation. She’s muted me, so could someone else let her know how this works?

        2. Truthfully, I’d love to see judges strike down laws as being too vague (Congress want to protect wetlands? Congress should fucking DEFINE what a wetland is, for example). But they allow the bureaucracy to write laws so we have to deal with it.

      2. Forty is 39 pages too long.

        If I were president, I’d veto any bill over 1 page.

  11. Vaccine passports, cameras to start your car, phone spyware, etc., for your “safety” are just precursors for the ultimate endgame which is complete control.

    Hold the wrong opinions? No driving. Criticize the uniparty? That’ll be a visit from the FBI.

    In the end, all of this leads to labor camps. Ironic that you need all this technology to dupe people into accepting their new lives in will undoubtedly be a decidedly low tech prison on the outskirts of some desert town, or frozen wasteland.

    1. The labor camp will be a job at Google or Amazon, so not that bad.

      1. As long as they have those suicide nets, I’m all in.

        1. why do you hate freedom?
          #Ibelievedicouldfly

    2. The end game is present day China

  12. I’d really like to see similar technology that will prohibit the car from being started unless the driver is wearing at least two (2) covid masks.

    1. Alt text: Karen notices a neighbor without a mask and uses her newly installed police whistle to summon the goon squad.

    2. LOL. The karens around here have all started wearing masks again while driving solo in their cars.

      “You can’t make this stuff up!”

      1. I saw one this afternoon, driving about 10 mph slower than traffic – about 5 mph under the speed limit – alone in her minivan, mask on, nose fully exposed.

        What is the point of driving that slow?

  13. Red. Barchetta.

  14. $100 government will be exempted over they will have an override

  15. There’s been a steady bipartisan effort in Congress over the past few years to require new cars to come with this kind of technology.

    In 2019, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D–Mich.) introduced the Honoring Abbas Family Legacy to Terminate (HALT) Drunk Driving Act—named after a Michigan family killed by a drunk driver—that is nearly identical to the provision in the infrastructure bill.

    Ok, how bipartisan is it? Like on a slider scale… where’s the slider? Right, dead center in the middle?

    1. It’s already been established here that one Republican makes it bi-partisan.

    2. like the song says “the middles on the right and William Jennings Bryan preaches every night” thank you James McMurtry.

  16. Democrats = Fascists

    1. Actually, that’s “party in power = fascists”

  17. Car and Driver notes that Nissan experimented with other types of detection technology, including a sensor in the gear stick that would detect alcohol in the driver’s sweat and air sensors that would detect alcohol in the cabin.

    Oh, by the way, NONE of this seems anywhere near as creepy as it would have in 2019.

    1. The gear stick idea is a non-starter because almost no cars are offered with stick shifts these days. Every car comes with an automatic, at least in North America. Even cars like Ferrari or a Porsche 911. (Those Porsche SUVs or the Panamera are no surprise, but a 911?) In 10 years or so, no one will know how to drive a stick shift anymore. SMH

      1. Just the guys and girls on youtube saving all the vintage cars and trucks they can with carburetors and stick shifts.
        SAVE THE STICK

      2. Within 30 miles of NYC there’s a whopping 103 new cars for sale with a manual. Sad.

        Props to Ford for sticking one in the new Broncos. I might have to buy one.

        https://www.cars.com/shopping/results/?maximum_distance=30&zip=10022&stock_type=new&makes%5B%5D=&year_min=&year_max=&list_price_min=&list_price_max=&mileage_max=&transmission_slugs%5B%5D=manual

      3. Automatic transmissions still typically have a gear shift lever for Park – Drive – Reverse.

      4. I managed to find a new manual transmission car last year. But it is getting hard.

  18. I’m surprised they don’t go for monitoring the driver’s actions rather than just alcohol. I would think that sensors in the steering column would be much more able to detect all sorts of impaired driving. That has the downside of still letting the person start the car but has the upside of catching the person who is trying to text while going down the freeway. And doesn’t need cameras of any kind.

    1. Wouldn’t this all be much easier if everyone was forced into public transportation?

      1. I’m currently using public transport in Shiticon Valley and let me tell ya, it’s just a LOVERLY way to get about! And I can’t recall EVER seeing what might be called “impaired” behavior from the “public” side of that equation! So yeah, let’s impose it on everyone!

      2. Thank you Mr. Obvious.

        1. That’s Captain Obvious, thank you very much.

          1. My bad. Couldn’t make out the insignia at this distance.

    2. My car, Honda CRV, will alert the driver of inattentive driving, suggesting this approach might be better than trying to measure blood alcohol. It would also work for drivers impaired by other substances or lack of sleep.

      1. My Ford Fusion does that as well, however since it requires you start driving before it can analyze anything I think it fails this mandate, which is to prevent someone from driving the car at all

      2. There’s a local highway I drive pretty much every day that has a place where the “straight” road jogs to the right. My CR-V inattentive driver light comes on every time I drive this section of the road. I did an experiment and found it will not trigger if I use the right turn signal — but there’s no turning being done.

    3. Because impairment isn’t easily measured, while BAC is.

      1. I disagree, impair might be easier to measure because modern cars already sense much road information. For example, if you can not maintain control in a lane the car could alert you and let you know than it will stop if you do not maintain better control.

        1. What if you’re driving during an emergency? What if someone is shooting at you, or trying to run you off the road to do you harm?

          Guess it’s fuck you to death so M4E can feel safe at home.

          1. M4E wants tornado chasers to die instead of trying to study them.

          2. Or just driving in traffic. A couple of years back I had a long term rental with lane assist / forward collision avoidance that I ended up having to disable because one or the other kicked in about once every five minutes on my daily commute.

            Dear Japanese engineers, I already have a collision avoidance system: it’s called going around all the idiots jabbing on their brakes for no good reason.

            1. Driving in a construction zone. Had a rental car the other day try to force me into the side of a tractor trailer because it couldn’t tell which of the multiple lane markings it should be following, and chose poorly.

        2. The car just needs to inform you in a way that is hard to miss, such as vibrating the steering wheel.

    4. “I’m surprised they don’t go for monitoring the driver’s actions”

      I bet this happens.

      On a side note: road-side sobriety tests are not currently required. The officer asks for them simple to record more data. Their purpose is not to potentially vindicate the driver but to provide supporting data to the state.

  19. If you aren’t UI and locked out, doesn’t the recent SCOTUS maybe give you a cause of action for a (temporary) taking? How about when a person can’t get away from an assault and is raped or murdered waiting for the lockou? Good times for lawyers in the future.

    1. Good times for lawyers is the only reason government exists

  20. How did we get to the point where the federal government has taken over car design?

    1. Yeah, the 1960s… seems like yesterday.

      1. the 1960s when ford fairlanes were werew made with paper thin frames so they could race roundy-round nascar but the street versions got lightly tapped in the rear and had to total the car. ahh the 60s!!

    2. 1970’s on line 2….

    3. I think the 1860s sent a telegram.

      1. The Pony Express was faster than the USPS is now.

    4. Somebody had to do it.

    5. Thank you Ralph Nader
      Unsafe at any thought.

  21. Doesn’t it also require half of all cars manufactured be electric by 2030? Have they solved that range problem yet? And how do electric cars perform in the upper Midwest when a 0 degree Fahrenheit high is considered a warm day in January?

    1. Range isn’t a problem if you aren’t allowed to go anywhere.

      1. COVID Delta++++?

        1. Only two more weeks of lockdowns!

          1. I keep hoping for that sweet lockdown but it turns out I’m essential although my wife vigorously disputes this assessment.

        2. COVID-26 Omega Variant.

    2. Most automobile trips a person makes will be within range. Day to day trips are generally not that long. Long road trips might be a problem. Thing is how frequent are those long trips. They could be addressed by having more dispersed charging stations. Alternatively a person could simple rent a fossil fuel car for road trips.

      1. You’ve never been to a rural area I see.

        1. He rarely leaves his mom’s basement.

        2. I understand your point, I hope you will give me mine. A 2019 estimate put the rural population of this country at about 14%. The majority of the people who own cars rarely go farther on a daily basis than an electric car’s range.

          1. How many miles does that 14% have to travel to grow your food, raise your meat, pump your oil, and generate your electricity? When the shit hits the fan flyover country will still have food on the table and water from the well while you starve in your 800 square foot apartment.

            1. I live in Wisconsin. We are a water rich state and my city water comes from local aquifers. I can and do buy vegetables and meat from farmers that live within 100 miles from my house. The two utilities company that service my local area are in the process of switching from fossil fuels to solar and wind generated locally. And as I get older I am thinking about downsizing my living quarters. I am sure I will be fine.

              1. Good for you. Why do you feel we should all be forced to live under rules that MIGHT be beneficial for where you live?

          2. So if the majority is unaffected the minority can fuck right off then?

            BTW if its OK to screw over 14% of the population what does that mean for the 13% of the population that happens to be black?

            1. I am not suggesting screwing over anyone. What I am saying is that the range/charge for an electric vehicle is not a factor for the majority of people. Therefore I don’t see range being a significant factor in most peoples’ decision to transition to electric vehicles.

          3. So we can sacrifice 14% of the population for the greater good?

            Margaret Sanger on line 1.

          4. You should probably provide your citation, conurbation dwelling toady.

          5. 14% is 46 million people

          6. I gues that you have never seen the line of cars that commute 2 hours (each way) from Manteca to SF every day.

      2. I spent 4 hours commuting today asshole. Average 2.5 hours for the current contract I’m working. I put 24,000 miles a year on my car. Guess the government should just pay me to stay home?

        Fuck you fascist.

        1. I have an appointment with a specialist in Billings in two weeks. The trip is five hours one way.

          1. Better get walking.

            1. He can ride a buffalo

              1. We’ve got people working on that.
                https://bisonbridge.org/

          2. Not to worry. I expect rural areas, especially Montana, to be declared not suitable for private residential living. Too much risk or something.

          3. Does the road have a bike lane?

            1. Under M4E’s bureaucratic utopia it does. Electric bikes even. With charging stations every mile. Powered by unicorn farts.

      3. When did your ass deciding what the appropriate time for me to take a trip become “moderate” you fascist POS?????

      4. ” Alternatively a person could simple rent a fossil fuel car for road trips.” Another alternative would be for asshole slavers like you fuck off.

        1. “Alternatively a person could simple rent a fossil fuel car owned by either big corporations or the government, who could shut off the car and have you arrested if you deviated from the agreed upon itinerary to your trip to the dacha.”

      5. Part of the problem with dispersed charging stations is it still takes a lot longer to charge an electric car than it does to fill the tank of a gasoline or diesel car. A trip to wife’s family takes one 10 minute stop for gas, however even the best electric cars will require at least two 1 hour charging sessions

        1. The real problem is that it puts you completely under control of the government for where you travel.

          1. what do you think home mortgages do? the gubbmint don’t want you being able to move around to much. to hard to keep track of you. that’s why they keep making laws against living in campers, vans and mobile homes.

            1. What laws against living in campers, vans, and mobile homes?

              There are lots of local ordinances about parking them for too long in the same spot and that kind of thing, but plenty of people live in RVs, and there are no state-wide or nation-wide laws prohibiting them from doing so.

    3. Mainers are asking the same thing. So much for stockpiling fuel in 55 gallon drums for when the SHTF.

    4. No, the bill doesn’t do that. Biden signed an executive order that mentions such a goal in its preamble, and then doesn’t actually do anything to implement such a goal in its action parts. Which was good enough to get him on the news.

    5. Range problem? What about the charging problem when the grid already can’t handle everyone coming home at 5 PM and turning on the TV?

      Remember to “Keep California Golden” by using lessing electricity between 4 and 9 PM, when renewable energy is less available!

      1. “between 4 and 9 PM, when renewable energy is less available!”
        details, details, only details.

    6. “Doesn’t it also require half of all cars manufactured be electric by 2030”

      Biden included hybrids on the list, so that means that the auto industry is well on the way to meeting the goal.
      But hybrid is not a change of anything, all energy still comes from oil. The hybrid drive train is but one method of increasing fuel efficiency. Turbos, higher compression, greater expansion (Atkins cycle), smaller engines, and many other technologies also can improve efficiency. Biden is merely favoring one (hybrid) over others as a means of having the optics of ‘doing something’.

  22. So does anyone that has previously thought my opinion that the goal is to turn the American middle and lower class into serfs was hyperbolic still think that?

    Based on what they’ve done to us over the last two years, and how many people are accepting of it, what do you think the next couple will look like?

    1. Stand in line…. I’ve been saying this stuff since 9/12/2001.

      1. Although I’ve never seen you post here before. Are you a fed?

    2. Well we will enjoy freedom from mean tweets. Other than that the future doesn’t look bright. Probably won’t need to wear shades.

  23. This seems like a provision that will likely never be fully realized. Probably not worth worrying about. I likely will never own a car with the provisions.

    1. Good for you.
      Sorry to hear you can’t afford new cars.

      1. My car is relatively new and I expect to buy about one more car in my life. Well before this rule would go into effect. I don’t plan to continue driving until my kids have to take away the keys. I don’t plan to be one of the old drivers on the road people swear at as they pass.

        1. The fact that your kids will have to deal with this bullshit doesn’t factor into your support of this legislation. Fuck off slaver.

          1. My children don’t drink so I don’t see this as an issue for them.

            1. Assuming whatever tech they decide to implement has no chance for false positives, which I think we both know is a pretty big assumption

              1. M4E doesn’t know that. He’s pretty faithful in his rulers.

    2. Moderation4ever
      August.6.2021 at 5:31 pm

      I likely will never own a car.

      Yeah, we know.

    3. Yes, the technology is not there, so the requirement will likely keep being postponed. Not worth worrying about.

  24. What could possibly go wrong?
    Your photo is misleading. The system is supposed to be “passive”, it will sniff the air. The one shown in the photo is not passive
    This will be the killer: “This new prevention technology would have to “passively detect” whether a driver is impaired and “passively” measure his blood alcohol concentration to see if it’s above the 0.08 percent limit set by federal regulations.” How is a designated driver going to take home one or two drunks? The system does not require blowing into the device like this photo shows. Instead, it sniffs the air. One or two drunks could easily trigger the system and disable the car. Taxis, Ubers, Lyfts, and other car services transporting the inebriated could trigger and engine cut off. This is a recipe for chaos!

    1. Watch the alcohol based hand sanitizer everyone keeps in their car nowadays, red flag everyone.

    2. And what about emergencies? Maybe you’re camping with friends and somebody has a medical emergency- is drunk driving so bad that an impaired driver should be disallowed from driving someone to the ER?

      1. Someone else dying for the greater good is in vogue

  25. “We have the technology to prevent drunk driving and save lives, and it’s long past time that we use it,”

    Yes, it’s the rideshare apps, like Uber and Lyft. Stop making those too expensive. Studies have shown that the availability of rideshare has reduce drunk driving.

    1. and the attorneys and the courts are still pissed about that.

    2. Rideshare prices have doubled or tripled since Covid.

  26. It’s not like we’re in the middle of a used car crunch right now. Auto prices have never been so high. What do we need? More regulations to drive up prices, drive competition out of the market, and a system whereby congress-critter-favored companies can get exemptions!

  27. When will we be regulated enough? As The Simpson’s had it: “Like the cleaning of a house…it never ends.”

  28. Constitutional amendment:
    Any legislator who votes for a law requiring a non-existent technology, or executive branch official or employee who attempts to promulgate regulations concerning a non-existent technology shall be immediately discharged with forfeit of all pension and other future benefits of any kind, and permanently barred from future employment at any level of government of government contract work, forever.

    1. But if not for stupid, what would thousands of government types do?

      1. Stay home wearing masks and clutching their vaccine cards?

    2. Hear hear.

  29. “If this technology does determine a driver is impaired or over the limit, it will have to be able to stop someone from driving his vehicle.”

    So this law will make designated drivers illegal?
    Whiskey
    Tango
    Foxtrot

  30. the transportation secretary will have to submit a report to House and Senate’s commerce committees on what’s taking so long.

    Don’t you know that innovation happens by government decree? When AOC or Pelosi wave their magic wands, scientists and engineers leap into action, put on their thinking caps, and deliver.

    If they fail to deliver what politicians promise, the only logical explanation is that The Oil Industry, Trump, Evil Republicans, or the Koch Brothers sabotaged them!

    1. “If they fail to deliver what politicians promise, the only logical explanation is that The Oil Industry, Trump, Evil Republicans, or the Koch Brothers sabotaged them!”
      Well we know they did that to socialism. The Soviet Union was a workers paradise before Trump sabotaged the proposition.

  31. I feel like this will be just like REAL ID — the can kicked down the road so far into the future it won’t matter anymore. But in the meantime, certain people will get rich on consulting with companies on how best to comply with the regulations….that never seem to go into play but must always be planned for……

  32. The solution is so obvious! Just have an armband with a needle to constantly draw blood as you drive, right? People will get used to all the arm holes eventually, and surely by then driving will be illegal unless you’re a robot.

    I mean, how else is one going to accurately measure blood alcohol content? Sweat? Electrodes? How accurate are they? Not at all, you say? No problem!

    Oooh, wait, can we implant some kind of chip into people just to drive? That makes government so hard, let me tell you.

    1. DUI prosecutions are a major source of income to local governments and attorneys. I’m confident that a new crisis will be identified that requires lots of arrests and court dates but if this technology is successful we may be facing some severe budget cuts in the meantime.

      1. No, you will be arrested for attempted drunk driving. Your car will be the informant and star witness. It will be a windfall for the government.

    2. Armband? You won’t need an armband, since the needle will be in your carseat, and activated by your body weight!

  33. Next on the list: laws requiring you to lock up your guns even when you are home because…oh shit… we already have that one….

  34. LOL, this is the funniest shit I’ve read in weeks if not months. They’ll need to outlaw the common mouthwash that many people use in the morning just before driving to work as well as the breath freshener sprays so Binaca blasts(R) will be a thing of the past even more than they are.

    So do these toys actually look for CO2 or just flow? I just want to know if I need a simple fan based device or one that accepts BB gun cartridges. I actually think the CO2 cartridge system would be easier since a simple Coandă effect system would mean no batteries just in case they disable the USB and “power” (cigarette lighter) ports.

    Any takers on how long before they outlaw the soon to be developed ‘fake breath’ devices? Maybe someone will create a vaping device that both vapes and fools this silliness.

    1. They make you blow and hum in random patterns, so you can’t just hook an air hose up to it

      1. Got it. Add a bellows from an old bicycle horn and a kazoo or a duck call.

    2. You’ve just given me a good idea to sabotage my enemies. Mouthwash spray through an open window.

      OT: What cities in Wisconsin have half a million people?

      1. Milwaukee is the only one.

  35. Decades ago, there was a push to force drivers to use seat belts that simply wouldn’t allow the engine to start until the driver’s belt was fastened.

    Then a woman was pulled out of her car — which wouldn’t start — by the gang that she had been running from. She was beaten, raped and left for dead . . .and the idea of requiring belts to be fastened quietly went away.

    I predict something similar in this case.

    1. In this new era, what if the rapist is a Democrat? Will it then be considered to have worked as intended?

  36. No puns based on the term “blow”? You guys are slipping.

  37. So you’re guilty until proven innocent by your car’s Ignition Interlock Device.

    Get used to this type of philosophy going forward.

  38. Calm down. By the time this tech becomes viable we’ll have self-driving cars that track everywhere we go.

  39. The problem really reduces to crime prevention vs law enforcement. A free society has few laws which are enforced when they are broken. Run over a pedestrian while driving? You should go to jail for many years regardless of why you failed to see and avoid killing them. A society which wants to prevent that pedestrian from being run over try to make all of the distractions and impairments illegal. No using cell phones. No eating in a moving vehicle. No driving with a blood alcohol of 0.15, 0.12, 0.08. And once you accept that prevention is the goal, you continue to buy into more and more onerous laws. Eventually you no longer allow the pedestrian near the road where people used to be allowed to drive cars. Or you reject prevention as a goal and simply punish people who cause harm to others. The punishment should be harsh enough to discourage people who aren’t ethically discouraged by the risk of harming others. Free people live their lives and are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

    1. >Run over a pedestrian while driving? You should go to jail for many years regardless of why you failed to see and avoid killing them.

      No. Half the time the pedestrian is in the wrong. I once had a pedestrian wait at the curb until I had a green light and he had the red, and he then proceeded to *sprint* in front of me. I didn’t hit him, but if I had, there’s no way I would have deserved many years of jail.

  40. Breathalyzers are easily bypassed.
    15 foot of hose. Thats about twice the volume of “breath” needed to start the car. Dont ask how I know.

  41. The Semi Tractor sector of transportation, has a cottage industry of re-kitting old units with totally rebuilt engines to bypass the new emission standards.

    1. They operate in the ‘Black-Market’ of Nazi-Government though.
      All free-people of a Nazi-Government are just criminals asking to get busted.

  42. So anyone in any kind if emergency is screwed if thier life or livelihood is on the line and this system says the car can’t be driven, go take your stabbing, poisoning, raping, and everything else because your circumstance couldn’t possibly outweigh that drink in your blood.

    And wow, we’ve just decided every person with any alcohol is a danger behind the wheel for how long? My senses were heightened when drinking, but hey who cares, destroy 3-5 years of my liberty and prosperity because Dick is a sloshed moron. Why should i care, so long as i get to go postal it’ll all work out.

    1. Your senses weren’t heightened. Your judgment was impaired (along with your reaction time). But most people can still drive safely at slightly over the legal limit, and there are times when it may be more advisable than staying in a dangerous situation, as you point out.

  43. As long as we’re doing this, let’s come up with a futuristic chair that doesn’t let politicians legislate while their drunk or impaired.

  44. Next step: smart thermostats that turn up your AC to stop you from “wasting” electricity, and smoke detectors that catch you smoking or vaping at home and ratchet up your insurance rates (or move you down on the waiting list once we have single payer).

    1. …or move you down on the waiting list once we have single payer).

      Jfree gets a boner.

  45. It would be interesting to do a study and find out if any of our congressmen are invested in this technology.

  46. We need a constitutional amendment that Congress is not allowed to mandate fiction technology.

    We are still unable to meet the cellulosic ethanol in gasoline mandate decades after its implementation. I think that there actually is some on the market now, but for years, we had only some laboratory quantities and multiple plants.

    The “passive detection” item, specifically makes this absolutely impossible. It doesn’t matter what method you use, calibration is a necessity and false-positives would be a problem.

    If it measures alcohol in the air, passengers will trip it.
    If it measures alcohol in sweat via a laser at the driver’s forehead, and your designated driver gets splashed with a beer glass? Car won’t start.
    If it measures alcohol via sweat on the steering wheel, a bartender will have a hard time passing.
    And that’s assuming calibration drift doesn’t make it go off in the presence of water.

    1. And all the “sweat”-related measures are defeated by that esoteric technology known as “gloves.”

  47. “‘I don’t think that will be as easy as people might think,’ Carla Bailo, CEO of the Center for Automotive Research, told NBC.”

    But we are not talking about people. We are talking about progressive politicians. A breed that are incapable of comprehending such limitations on their desires.

  48. Can they mandate flying cars too? That would be so cool.

  49. The used car market is going to be hot.

    1. Yes it is already. I’m looking at an ‘015 Caravan with just under 120,000 and it nearly $13,000.
      Maybe I’ll keep this rusty old ’06 T&C for another year as it still runs quite well yet even with 230,000 on it.

  50. Soon, congress will mandate that every new refrigerator will be able to monitor your weight, body fat index and blood pressure thus refusing to allow you to open it for any reason until at certain times.
    It will also monitor your speech for any that is critical of Dr. Fauci, Grim Greta or AOC, which will then lock itself until you make a donation to AOC’s green New Deal.
    Your new flat screen will have built in video camera and microphone to monitor everything in your home which will be duly recorded for future use against you. It will be able to notify the proper government authorities ie: FBI, NSA, DOJ directly should it detect any unsuitable, critical speech concerning our dear leaders.
    As for Debbie Dinglebrain, as least she’s not from my district but we still have to put up with Whitler and her little lesbian Nazi Atty. Gen.

  51. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months.KJH I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Just visit this website now. Your Success is one step away Copy and Paste —-> http://money32.ezyro.com/

  52. Potato chip consumption monitors are next for these freaks. Anyone betting politians will have an exemption for all of this? Guess how many new cars will sell?

  53. Could you be pulled over for using hand-sanitizer? Some have 70% or more of alcohol content.

  54. Car prices will go through the roof because of this. The technology if ever developed won’t be cheap, and the manufacturers damn sure won’t give it away. And the laws of supply and demand will drive the price of new units produced in the year before the technology is “required” through the roof. And right behind that the price of recent used units will also skyrocket. And I have every intention of buying new or low-mileage used the year before this tom-foolishness hatches and telling them all to go pound sand. I wonder how our rulers propose to force us to buy Bideymobiles that we don’t want.

  55. So if I go out with friends (yes I have friends) and I am the DD and we get in the car and a bunch of drunk dudes breathe all over the inside, its not gonna start?

    Seems like the simplest countermeasure is a piece of black electrical tape over the sniffer port.

  56. Treat everyone as if they were convicted of drunk driving and then need the government’s permission to start your own car. Time to let car companies know we won’t spend money on cars that treat us like criminals. Send the old car for a restoration and run it for a long long time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.