{"id":41222,"date":"2023-11-26T21:44:21","date_gmt":"2023-11-27T02:44:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=41222"},"modified":"2024-07-09T15:27:30","modified_gmt":"2024-07-09T19:27:30","slug":"section-24220-advanced-impaired-driving-technology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2023\/11\/26\/section-24220-advanced-impaired-driving-technology\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 24220: Advanced Impaired Driving Technology"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jon Miltimore<\/a> (Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

“Marketed to Congress as a benign tool to help prevent drunk driving, the measure will mandate that automobile manufacturers build into every car what amounts to a ‘vehicle kill switch,’” wrote<\/a> Barr, who was the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president in 2008.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

To my relief, I saw several fact-checkers at legacy institutions had determined the “kill switch” mandate was not true.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Unfortunately, my relief evaporated once I looked at the bill itself<\/a>. <\/p>

Sec. 24220 of the law explicitly states: “[T]o ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles.”<\/p>

The legislation then goes on to define the technology as a computer system that can “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle” and can “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Matt Posky<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

There are now fact-checking websites that are designed to counter other fact-checking websites who likewise want to pretend to have the market cornered on factual information. In the end, the vast majority boils down to contradictory talking points and trying to shape a desired narrative. Nobody really knows what the legislation will bring into effect because the relevant decisions haven't been made yet by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).<\/p>\n

But what is certain is that the provisions included within the trillion-dollar Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will eventually result in some form of driver monitoring. That’s likely to come by either an ignition interlocking device that would require drivers to utilize a breathalyzer before setting off, or some kind of comprehensive driver monitoring system that uses audio-visual cues to determine the driver’s present status.<\/p>\n

The latter seems the more likely option. Modern automobiles are already loaded up with microphones and are capable of transmitting control inputs, positional data, and plenty more back to the manufacturer. The automotive industry has also begun installing in-cabin camera systems to help track what occupants are doing<\/a>. Originally, the concept was floated as a way to safeguard from distracted driving. But it’s also more lucrative info for an industry that now seems completely obsessed with data mining its own customers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

There are privacy implications if the data is shared and the possibility of abuse if the system can be remotely controlled. But, even ignoring those issues, there will be false positives. I turned off my 2023 vehicle’s lane keeping assist feature, which seems comparatively simple, because it often nudges in the wrong direction. The system will in some cases incorrectly identify erratic driving or not realize that there may be a valid reason for it. And, though the goal is to prevent deaths by disabling cars, immobilizing a vehicle could also be fatal for its occupants or for those of other vehicles that it’s blocking. You can mandate a secure golden key, but what you end up with may be something else entirely.<\/p>\n\n

See also: Lauren Fix<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n