Government Inches Closer to Mandatory Breathalyzers, Driver Monitoring

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky
government inches closer to mandatory breathalyzers driver monitoring

In the past, someone who had an ignition interlock device equipped to their vehicle typically needed to be found guilty of some criminal offense. But they may become commonplace if the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) gets its wish to have breathalyzers installed into all new vehicles. 

With crash rates spiking dramatically and substance abuse on the rise, there’s good reason to fret over impaired drivers. Last week, the NTSB cited a fatal incident where alcohol led to the death of nine people on the road – the majority of which were children – as the main reason for it to call for alcohol impairment detection systems to be included in all new vehicles. Though it’s hardly the only one, as the concept of mandatory breathalyzers has been around for decades. 

We covered the topic back in 2008 and yours truly brought it up as recently as 2021, following some changes to an earlier draft of the infrastructure bill that sought to include new vehicle regulations that would have required an interlock device designed to prohibit impaired driving. Congress has actually been urging the NTSB to take action for a few years and now has some active legislation that may actually force the issue. 

Section 24220 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (which President Biden signed into law late in 2021) requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue a rule "that requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.”

Since the NTSB is an independent U.S. government investigative agency, it’s highly influential but can’t make any formal rules. So it’s urging the NHTSA to establish new vehicle guidelines that would uphold provisions outlined in the legislation. However, safety regulators could decide that installing an interlock device would be at odds with current federal vehicle safety standards.

"We need NHTSA to act. We see the numbers," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said, according to the Associated Press. "We need to make sure that we're doing all we can to save lives."

The NTSB has also been working with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (the largest automotive lobbying group in history) to encourage manufacturers to develop advanced impaired driving prevention technologies or leverage older tech in a manner that could be universally installed into new vehicles. This opens the door to more than just breathalyzers and there have been discussions about leveraging driver-monitoring cameras that we’ve already seen installed into some vehicles. Systems designed to monitor a driver's attentiveness while using hands-free systems (e.g. Tesla Autopilot or General Motors’ SuperCruise) could be adapted to leverage algorithms designed to detect whether or not a motorist is impaired. So, instead of blowing into a little tube, motorists may instead find themselves perpetually monitored for the duration of their journey. 

“Technology could’ve prevented this heartbreaking crash – just as it can prevent the tens of thousands of fatalities from impaired-driving and speeding-related crashes we see in the U.S. annually,” stated Homendy. “We need to implement the technologies we have right here, right now to save lives.”​

Not all of those technologies are camera- or tube-based. Research is presently underway to design cabin-mounted sensors that take readings of the air around the driver to determine whether or not their blood-alcohol level has exceeded the legal limits. The same is true for a touch-based system that could theoretically be installed into the starter button. This unit would shine an infrared light through the fingertip of the driver, taking biometric data as it also determines their blood-alcohol content. 

Alternatives to simply analyzing the air that’s coming out of the driver’s mouth may also have the ability to check for generalized impairment. Not all impaired wrecks involve alcohol. But there’s less comprehensive data collection on things like prescription drug abuse or hardcore mind-altering substances. Marijuana also poses a problem. States have varying laws on the legality of cannabis, including how to handle stoned drivers. Research has likewise been fairly non-conclusive in terms of establishing whether or not baked motorists even pose any serious risk. Previous studies have shown that subjects exposed to marijuana are more likely to be cautious, often electing not to drive if they feel impaired whereas subjects given alcohol often tend to overestimate their abilities. 

Frankly, it seems like a lot for any automated system to contend with – especially since we’ve seen how lousy some advanced driving aids can be. Do we really want to sacrifice yet another layer of privacy for the assumption that these interlocking devices function as advertised? 

It seems like a big ask and it all hinges on the NHTSA, which has three years to figure out how to implement this. The law formally requires "passive vehicle-integrated alcohol impairment detection systems, advanced driver monitoring systems or a combination of the two that would be capable of preventing or limiting vehicle operation if it detects driver impairment by alcohol," so that offers quite a bit of wiggle room. But it also sounds a lot like something you force upon a person who has repeatedly endangered the public, not every single motorist under the sun.

[Image: zstock/Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Join the conversation
2 of 66 comments
  • Mdoore Mdoore on Oct 11, 2022

    Can you imagine renting a vehicle and putting your mouth on the blower? Yuck.

  • Nobsartist Nobsartist on Oct 19, 2022

    The ntsb cannot even regulate forward lighting on vehicles.

    Just saying. They are incompetent hacks....

  • IH_Fever EV charger on a GM lot, probably with a Cummins generator to keep them running. A regular melting pot haha
  • Tassos Wake me up when VW (or any other loser "Legacy" automaker comes up with a "BETTER TESLA" BEV AT THE SAME PRICE. SO far, VW has FAILED MISERABLY AND LOST BILLIONS DOING IT. Its models are way underwhelming and inferior, and cost not much less than the model 3. ANd DESPITE the SCANDALOUS $7,500 tax credit, which is an INVERSE ROBIN HOOD, takes from the average household and gives it to the average BEV buying family, which has an income of $170k+, VW STILL FAILED.ALso notice the so-called "Mobility Officers" at FORD AND Renault QUIT. another HUGE SCAM, Autonomous Vehicles, they wasted 100s of billions (all idiot legacy makers together) and predicted billions of profits, but so far they DROWN IN A SEA OF RED INK with NOTHING to show for it. Morons will be morons, and the ones in this forum will cheer for their failures "AWESOME, WV, Indeed"! LOL!!!
  • Jwee More range and faster charging cannot be good news for the heavily indebted and distracted Musk.Tesla China is discounting their cars. Apart from the Model 3, no one is much buying Tesla's here in Europe. Other groups have already passed Tesla in Europe, where it was once dominant.Among manufacturers, 2021 EV sales:VW Group 25%, Stellantis at 14.5%,Tesla at 13.9%Hyundai-Kia at 11.2% Renault Group at 10.3%. Just 2 years ago, Tesla had a commanding 31.1% share of the European EV marketOuch., changed their data, so this is slightly different than last time I posted this, but same idea.
  • Varezhka Given how long the Mitsubishi USA has been in red, that's a hard one. I mean, this company has been losing money in all regions *except* SE Asia and Oceania ever since they lost the commercial division to Daimler.I think the only reason we still have the brand is A) Mitsubishi conglomerate's pride won't allow it B) US still a source of large volume for the company, even if they lose money on each one and C) it cost too much money to pull out and no one wants to take responsibility. If I was the head of Mitsubishi's North American operation and retreat was not an option, I think my best bet would be to reduce overhead by replacing all the cars with rebadged Nissans built in Tennessee and Mexico.As much as I'd like to see the return of Triton, Pajero Sport (Montero Sport to you and me), and Delica I'm sure that's more nostalgia and grass is greener thing than anything else.
  • Varezhka If there's one (small) downside to the dealer not being allowed to sell above MSRP, it's that now we get a lot of people signing up for the car with zero intention of keeping the car they bought. We end up with a lot of "lightly used" examples on sale for a huge mark-up, including those self-purchased by the dealerships themselves. I'm sure this is what we'll end up seeing with GR Corolla in Japan as well.This is also why the Land Cruiser has a 4 year waitlist in Japan (36K USD starting MSRP -> buy and immediately flip for 10, 20K more -> profit) I'm not sure if there's a good solution for this apart from setting the MSRP higher to match what the market allows, though this lottery system is probably as close as we can get.