US Congress mandates anti-drunk driving tech in cars

[Pauls' Revere]

How much do you want to bet that "Passive reporting" will also be included. I mean what good is a passive monitoring system if it doesn't report a drunk driver? Then, a squad car can be alerted to your location and check you out "for your safety".

And wonder why there's a chip shortage?



https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...-drunk-driving-technology-cars-201820120.html

Congress is making its biggest push ever to stop drunk driving with President Biden's huge infrastructure bill. As we previously reported, one of the provisions included a mandate for anti-drunk driving technology in new cars. Now, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has passed Congress with the measure intact, Autoblog (AP) reports, and it's expected to be signed by the President soon. As part of the legislation, carmakers will have to include technology to detect and stop drunk drivers by as early as 2026.

First, though, the Department of Transportation will have to determine the best solution to curtail intoxicated drunk driving. Specifically, the bill requires something that will “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired.” That sounds similar to infrared camera solutions already used today by GM, Nissan and others, Sam Abuelsamid, principal mobility analyst for Guidehouse Insights, tells the AP. It goes without saying that we'd need something more advanced than breathalyzers, which are already used as a punishment for convicted drunken drivers.

 

[Dr.3D]

Seems like it would be better if they had a way to determine if somebody is texting while driving.

 

[Snowball]

Seems like it would be better if they had a way to determine if somebody is texting while driving.

or stoned out of their gourd.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Cars and tax tractors belonging to cops, Congress and The Cathedral, will be exempt, of course.

 

[brushfire]

Our local drunk had his kid blow in the breathalyzer. The child was now part of his mobility strategy, where previously he would have just left the kid at home. Risks abound, all in the name of good intentions.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Bet politicians won't be seeing this tech in their cars.

 

[ClaytonB]

It's drunken sailing they really need to be worried about...

 

[pcosmar]

or stoned out of their gourd.

Tired,and sleepy drivers are a bigger threat than all the folks on Oxycontin Prescriptions.

I use Cannabis,,and will pit my driving against anyone.. If it affects my driving at all,, it is as an enhancement..and not debilitating at all.

and life takes me out on I-5 regularly.. that highway is nutz.

 

[tod evans]

Until a person drives poorly, government, all 3 branches, needs to butt the fuck out!

There's a very high rate of traffic offenses that take place due to domestic squabbles..........Do we see bitchy wives or asshole husbands ticketed for inciting poor driving? How about for inciting domestic violence? We shouldn't!

Just like driving government doesn't belong in the midst of domestic issues either. No matter what the do-gooders trumpet.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Until a person drives poorly, government, all 3 branches, needs to butt the fuck out!

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

 

[devil21]

Until a person drives poorly, government, all 3 branches, needs to butt the fuck out!

There's a very high rate of traffic offenses that take place due to domestic squabbles..........Do we see bitchy wives or asshole husbands ticketed for inciting poor driving? How about for inciting domestic violence? We shouldn't!

Just like driving government doesn't belong in the midst of domestic issues either. No matter what the do-gooders trumpet.

Yeah...but the "driver" voluntarily signed the state's contract, pledging strict performance so actual "danger" posed is irrelevant.

 

[tod evans]

Yeah...but the "driver" voluntarily signed the state's contract, pledging strict performance so actual "danger" posed is irrelevant.

Contract was 'Legislated' and 'Executed' by the government that should "butt the fuck out"..

Furthermore arguments can easily be made that potential drivers are unduly influenced, even coerced into signing the "contract" you refer to.

Further-furthermore, "Danger" isn't at issue.........Probable or possible erratic driving that may or may not involve injury or property damage or 'precrime' is the issue.

In essence the 'Legislature" has decried non-criminal behavior to in fact be criminal under special circumstances.

 

[cjm]

Yeah...but the "driver" voluntarily signed the state's contract, pledging strict performance so actual "danger" posed is irrelevant.

...Furthermore arguments can easily be made that potential drivers are unduly influenced, even coerced into signing the "contract" you refer to....

[MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION]; I think your point is valid, but to [MENTION=12547]tod evans[/MENTION];'s point, voluntarily should probably be in quotation marks.