Federal law would stop the cars of drunk or impaired drivers, but it isn’t happening yet


A federal law requiring impairment-detection devices inside all new cars survived a recent push to strip its funding but remains stalled by questions about whether the technology is ready.

Rana Abbas Taylor lost her sister, brother-in-law, nephew and two nieces when a driver with a blood-alcohol level almost four times the legal limit slammed into their car in January 2019 as the Michigan family drove through Lexington, Kentucky, on the way home from a Florida vacation.

The tragedy turned Abbas Taylor into an outspoken advocate for stopping the more than 10,000 alcohol-related deaths each year on U.S. roads. 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, often referred to as the Halt Drunk Driving Act, anticipated that as early as this year, auto companies would be required to roll out technology to “passively” detect when drivers are drunk or impaired and prevent their cars from operating. Regulators can choose from a range of options, including air monitors that sample the car’s interior for traces of alcohol, 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 it the most important piece of legislation in the organization’s 45-year history. Still, implementation has been bogged down by regulatory delays, without any clear signals that final approval is near.

“The way we measure time is not by days or months or years. It’s by number of lives lost,” Abbas Taylor said in an interview with The Associated Press. “So when we hear manufacturers say, ‘We need more time,’ or ‘The tech is not ready,’ or ‘We’re not there yet,’ all we hear is, ‘More people need to die before we’re willing to fix this.’”

The ‘kill switch’ debate

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. Another bill to repeal it entirely awaits a committee vote.

Most of the opposition has stemmed from suggestions that the law would require manufacturers to equip cars with a “kill switch”. That would essentially allow them to “be controlled by the government,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis posted on the social platform X, drawing comparisons to George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.”

The alcohol industry has fiercely defended the law against such arguments. Chris Swonger, president and CEO of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, said it specifically requires the technology to be passive, similar to other current safety mandates such as seat belts and air bags.



Source link

  • Related Posts

    Rubio Reassures Europe Even as He Warns of ‘Dangerous Delusion’

    “This was a foolish idea that ignored both human nature and it ignored the lessons of over 5,000 years of recorded human history, and it has cost us dearly,” Rubio…

    The cocaine problem seems to be getting worse again

    Colombian coca cultivation fell dramatically between 2000 and 2015, a period that saw intense U.S.-backed eradication and interdiction efforts. That progress reversed in 2015, when peace talks and legal rulings…

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    ‘Wicked’ Star Ethan Slater Talks New Play ‘Marcel on the Train’

    ‘Wicked’ Star Ethan Slater Talks New Play ‘Marcel on the Train’

    Gisèle Pelicot tells BBC: I felt crushed by horror – but I don't feel anger

    Gisèle Pelicot tells BBC: I felt crushed by horror – but I don't feel anger

    Here’s the latest on Day 8 of the Olympics – National

    Here’s the latest on Day 8 of the Olympics – National

    The SEC closed its investigation into Fisker

    The SEC closed its investigation into Fisker

    Tucker 94* headlines Ireland's thrashing of Oman

    Company countersues Ontario government, alleging reputational harm

    Company countersues Ontario government, alleging reputational harm