Federal law on impairment-detection devices in new cars faces delays

Body

A federal law that requires new cars to carry impairment-detection technology has cleared a key funding test in Congress, but its rollout still depends on whether regulators decide the systems are reliable enough to mandate. The Halt Drunk Driving Act survived a push to remove its funding, yet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is still weighing what technologies are ready for deployment.

The law stems from advocacy by Rana Abbas Taylor after her family was killed in a January 2019 crash in Kentucky involving a driver with a blood-alcohol level “almost four times the legal limit,” according to the account described by The Associated Press. Abbas Taylor later became an outspoken advocate for stopping alcohol-related deaths on U.S. roads, and lawmakers attached the “Honoring Abbas Family Legacy to Terminate Drunk Driving Act” to the $1 trillion infrastructure law that then-President Joe Biden signed in 2021.

The measure is often referred to as the Halt Drunk Driving Act, and it anticipates that as early as this year, automakers would be required to deploy technology that can “passively” detect when drivers are drunk or otherwise impaired. Regulators can choose among options, including air monitors that sample the car’s interior for alcohol traces, fingertip readers that measure a driver’s blood-alcohol level, or scanners that detect signs of impairment in eye or head movements.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving called the act the most important piece of legislation in the group’s 45-year history, but advocates say delays have slowed implementation. Abbas Taylor criticized those delays in an interview with The Associated Press, saying, “The way we measure time is not by days or months or years. It’s by number of lives lost,” adding that when manufacturers seek more time, “all we hear is, ‘More people need to die before we’re willing to fix this.’”

The congressional fight over timing and funding has also centered on how the technology works. A Republican-led effort to remove the Halt Act’s funding was defeated in the U.S. House last month by a 268-164 vote, but another bill to repeal the act entirely is pending a committee vote. Much of the opposition has come from suggestions that the law would require “kill switch” technology that could essentially be controlled by the federal government.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis posted on X that the approach would put cars under government control, drawing comparisons to George Orwell’s “1984.” The alcohol industry has defended the law against those arguments, with Chris Swonger, president and CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, telling The Associated Press that the requirement is “passive, similar to other current safety mandates such as seat belts and air bags,” and saying, “There is no switch, there’s no government control, there is no sharing of data,” calling the concern “an unfortunate scare tactic.”

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who authored the defunding effort, disputed that characterization and warned that even a dashboard acting on its own could act as what he described as a “judge, your jury, and your executioner.” He pointed to an example in which a driver swerves to avoid a neighbor’s pet in a snowstorm but the vehicle deactivates after determining the driver is impaired. The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade association for U.S. automakers, made a similar case to regulators in 2024, arguing that more research is needed before mandating the technology.

Regulators are still deciding how to translate the law’s requirements into enforceable rules. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration told The Associated Press in an email that it is still “assessing developing technologies for potential deployment” and expects to report back to Congress “soon.” Even supporters, according to the AP account, predict the agency will push the decision at least into 2027, which would give auto companies additional time to install the technology.

Supporters of the law say the technology is getting closer to practical use and that impairment-detection requirements could extend beyond alcohol-only enforcement. Stephanie Manning, chief government affairs officer at Mothers Against Drunk Driving, told The Associated Press that advocates are “still sort of pushing back against this narrative that the technology doesn’t exist,” and said, “We’ve seen many different types of technology that can solve drunk driving. We just haven’t seen it deployed and implemented the way that we would like.” She added that states already have breath-activated ignition interlock systems for DUI offenders.

Separately, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research group funded by auto insurers, said it would soon include impairment detection and other technology aimed at curbing risky driving behavior as criteria for vehicles to earn one of its top safety awards. To accelerate the timeline, one bill advancing in Congress would offer a $45 million prize for the first consumer-ready impairment-detection technology, Abbas Taylor said such efforts give her hope, saying, “When you’ve lost everything, there is nothing that will stop you from fighting for what is right,” and that she believes implementation is “only a matter of time before this happens.”