Your Next Car May Refuse To Start if It Thinks You've Had a Drink

[DivCurlGrad72]

Buried in the recent "infrastructure" bill is a requirement that "Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act" all new cars have built-in technology that disable them if it determines the driver is impaired:

The bill defines the technology as a system that can "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired" and "passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver" is above 0.08 percent. If the system decides that a driver is being naughty, it will "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected."

Ya, no thanks.

Your Next Car May Refuse To Start if It Thinks You’ve Had a Drink

Get ready to pay for new nanny-state technology and for bypassing the unwelcome intervention.

reason.com

Read More

 

[Alexx1401]

Again this is what people vote for so it gets hard to feel bad for them. Personally I think its stupid but, could not care much. It will of course ad to the cost of the vehicle and do nothing to stop drunk driving.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Of course it'll check for vaccinations and if you're not a registered marxist it'll drive into a tree.
Good times.

 

[RicInOR]

TSA check to leave the house. Oh, that is too much privledge, no car for you.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Personally I think its stupid but, could not care much.

Stupid, and possibly dangerous, which is why I do care. Have an important appointment, or worse, on your way to the emergency room? Something that's made you nervous to the point that the car thinks you're intoxicated and won't start, or shuts down? Will it leave you stranded somewhere?

Ok, maybe that's catastrophizing, and maybe it'll never be that bad, or if so, eventually public outcry would force a neutering of the system. At a minimum, it's just one more sensor, one more weak link, that can fail and cause problems.

Luckily, there'll probably be plenty of ways to be found in the internet to disable the system.

 

[Alexx1401]

Stupid, and possibly dangerous, which is why I do care. Have an important appointment, or worse, on your way to the emergency room? Stranded somewhere? Something that's made you nervous to the point that the car thinks you're intoxicated and won't start, or shuts down?

Ok, maybe that's catastrophizing, and maybe it'll never be that bad, or if so, eventually public outcry would force a neutering of the system. At a minimum, it's just one more sensor in the system, one more weak link, that can fail and cause problems.

Luckily, there'll probably be plenty of ways to be found in the internet to disable the system.

Yep. First thing I thought is one more thing to "go wrong" and leave the vehicle dead in the water. Again though if the fools want this and vote for it? All I can hope is the first few people who get stranded thought it was a great idea. I am old enough that I have enjoyed the freedom. I just really feel bad for those much younger who are at this rate going to see it lost completely. Again though people keep screaming they want a police state. So when they get it they can remember the old line. Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.

 

[albin25]

So, you're driving on a slippery highway in near whiteout conditions at 20mph in a 65mph zone, carefully steering into an occasional slight slide, trying to get to safety.... your car says you must be impaired.... and shuts off, sixty miles from the nearest anything!
Oh ya.... sounds safe to me.

Yet another regulation written by limo-liberals that never drive themselves to or from work and never venture outside their bubble.

 

[jackrv]

Shades of the early 70s, seatbelt-shoulder harness interlock. That's when I bought my first pickup.

Been driving pickup since.

 

[Hop Sing]

Next they'll want us to use seat belts and blinkers and obey traffic laws!

 

[slimmer13]

It'll probably be $100 to crack the ECM and delete that BS.

 

[TTSX]

Next they'll want us to use seat belts and blinkers and obey traffic laws!

God forbid we use our signals BEFORE slamming on our brakes at the McDonald's driveway...

 

[Jason999]

Well this is just ludicrous, are they really intending to make breathalyzers mandatory equipment on new vehicles?

I dont like new cars anyhow. I got my '27 Ford in my garage, about time to get her back on the road. Let's see them scratch their heads and figure out how to track me.

 

[revjen45]

The equivalent of the ***SMART GUN***!!!

I'm glad that, statistically speaking, our vehicles will probably outlast us. We have bought our last new car.

 

[revjen45]

That said, our '49 Burb always starts and I can actually work on it if I have to.

 

[Mike_M57]

Pretty soon cars will have A.I. and want to think for themselves. Not too worried. As long as it has a tailpipe and I have a banana... détente.

 

[BrentN]

Pretty soon cars will have A.I. and want to think for themselves. Not too worried. As long as it has a tailpipe and I have a banana... détente.

Kind of like asking permission to go someplace. Cool. Maybe the new cars will be advanced enough to determine if we really need to go someplace or not. "Hal: This mission is too important for you to jeopardize it."

 

[Mikej]

We're not supposed to drive cars anyway. Man made climate change and all.

And biden is a putz.

 

[Cavedweller]

What's next? A radio transmitter that reports the breathalyzer results to local law enforcement through the car's satellite antenna? Maybe your self-driving Tesla takes you straight to the police station if you pop positive. I can see it coming.

 

[Sweep1308]

Buried in the recent "infrastructure" bill is a requirement that "Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act" all new cars have built-in technology that disable them if it determines the driver is impaired:

Ya, no thanks.

Your Next Car May Refuse To Start if It Thinks You’ve Had a Drink

Get ready to pay for new nanny-state technology and for bypassing the unwelcome intervention.

reason.com

Perhaps I'm the optimist here. Much like the micro engraving of projectiles that California attempted to legislate, to my understanding the technology doesn't currently exist. And it would cost money to develop it, then take time to test it making sure it's not more unsafe than the condition it's attempted to prevent. I feel as if the auto manufacturers will resist this as well, primarily based on the cost. Wherein it's something to keep an eye on, it likely won't ever happen due to a number of hurdles I don't see being crossed.

 

[Cavedweller]

Perhaps I'm the optimist here. Much like the micro engraving of projectiles that California attempted to legislate, to my understanding the technology doesn't currently exist. And it would cost money to develop it, then take time to test it making sure it's not more unsafe than the condition it's attempted to prevent. I feel as if the auto manufacturers will resist this as well, primarily based on the cost. Wherein it's something to keep an eye on, it likely won't ever happen due to a number of hurdles I don't see being crossed.

I hope you are right. But the article indicates the technology is already being developed for commercial vehicles. It's only a matter of time. And the cost always gets passed on to the consumer.