A federal law requiring impairment-detection devices inside all new cars survived a recent push to strip its funding but remains stalled by questions about whether the technology is ready.

Rana Abbas Taylor lost her sister, brother-in-law, nephew, and two nieces when a driver with a blood-alcohol level almost four times the legal limit slammed into their car in January 2019 as the Michigan family drove through Lexington, Kentucky, on their way home from a Florida vacation.

The tragedy turned Abbas Taylor into a passionate advocate for preventing the more than 10,000 alcohol-related deaths that occur each year on U.S. roads. Lawmakers attached the Honoring Abbas Family Legacy to Terminate Drunk Driving Act to the $1 trillion infrastructure law signed by then-President Joe Biden in 2021.

The measure, often called the Halt Drunk Driving Act, anticipated that auto companies would be required to roll out technology to “passively” detect when drivers are drunk or impaired, preventing their vehicles from operating. Regulators could choose from various options, including air monitors that sample the car’s interior for traces of alcohol, fingertip readers measuring a driver’s blood-alcohol level, or scanners detecting impairment signs in eye or head movements.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving heralded this legislation as the most significant in their 45-year history, yet implementation has been hindered by regulatory delays, with no clear indication of when final approval might occur.

“The way we measure time is not by days or months or years. It’s by the number of lives lost,” Abbas Taylor stated in an interview. “So when we hear manufacturers say, ‘We need more time,’ or ‘The tech is not ready,’ or ‘We’re not there yet,’ all we hear is, 'More people need to die before we’re willing to fix this.'”

The ‘kill switch’ debate

A Republican-led initiative to withdraw funding for the Halt Act was defeated in the U.S. House last month by a vote of 268-164, but another bill seeking to repeal it entirely awaits a committee vote.

Opposition has largely stemmed from concerns that the law would require manufacturers to install a “kill switch”. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis remarked on social media that it would enable government control over vehicles, drawing parallels to George Orwell’s dystopian narrative in 1984.

The alcohol industry has robustly defended the law, asserting that it necessitates passive technology analogous to existing safety mandates like seat belts and airbags. Chris Swonger, president and CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, emphasized, “There is no switch, there’s no government control, there is no sharing of data; that’s just an unfortunate scare tactic.”

Yet, Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky who led the defunding initiative, expressed concerns that even an autonomous dashboard could act like a judge and jury. He highlighted a scenario in which a mother swerving in a snowstorm to avoid harming a pet might have her car deactivate due to a faulty impairment assessment.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation echoed similar sentiments, urging regulators to delay any mandates until more research concludes, arguing that even a slight rate of false positives could result in many impaired decisions for innocent drivers.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is currently developing rules for the Halt Act, stating they expect to report back to Congress soon. However, even optimistic supporters believe decisions could be deferred until 2027, with auto companies needing an additional two to three years to implement the technology.

Vouching for the tech’s reliability

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently announced that impairment detection and comparable technologies will now contribute to crucial vehicle safety criteria.

States already impose laws mandating breath-activated interlock systems for DUI offenders. The intended system under the Halt Act aims to extend detection capabilities beyond just operators under alcohol influence.

MADD’s chief government affairs officer Stephanie Manning commented, “The technology does exist; we’re just waiting for it to be deployed in the manner we need it.”

In a bid to accelerate progress, a pending bill in Congress proposes a $45 million prize for the first consumer-ready technology. Abbas Taylor expressed hope that initiatives like this will catalyze change.

“When you’ve lost everything, there’s nothing that will stop you from fighting for what is right,” she declared. “But we see the writing on the wall, and we know it’s only a matter of time before this happens.”