Share This Article:
Yes, it is coming, like it, want it, or not.
Back in 2019, the Washington Post noted that Congress was contemplating the mandate of smarter vehicles. There was consideration of a bill that would mandate cars being equipped with technology that would detect whether the driver was impaired. The main point would be to "stop drunk drivers before they get on the road." Of course, "drunk" drivers are not the only impaired drivers, and there are a variety of other potential impairments that may be as worthy of consideration, including other drugs, fatigue, and more.
Motor vehicle safety is an important consideration in workers' compensation. According to the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH):
"Motor vehicle crashes are the 1st or 2nd leading cause of death in every major industry group. In 2019, 1,270 U.S. workers driving or riding in a motor vehicle on a public road died in a work-related crash (24% of all work-related deaths)."
The Post conceded the existence and use of such devices at that time. It described an "ignition interlock" that prevents a car for starting. These devices require someone to exhale into a sensor, much like a breathalyzer, and thereby verify the absence of alcohol before the car's ignition system is enabled. There are obvious challenges to such equipment.
An impaired driver might ask someone to blow into the machine for them. Or heading out for a night on the town, someone might borrow someone else's car. Or, perhaps engage in any of the Seven Ways to Trick an Ignition Interlock documented by Select Insurance (note that these are not necessarily going to work, and some are disgusting). One might join in with the over 50,000 people who have viewed the YouTube video "How to CHEAT and BEAT the IGNITION INTERLOCK Program in 2017." The producer claims those methods work, but would anyone watch the video if they did not make that claim? There is, apparently, significant interest in both the devices and how they may be frustrated or defeated.
Despite the potentials for avoidance, the Post notes that such devices have been "in widespread use for those charged or convicted of drunken driving." They represent a significant expense. According to Intoxalock, the cost for installation of such a device ranges from $70.00 to $150.00. A website devoted to defending DUI charges asserts the cost may be as high as $2,000. Alcolock says that you might lease such a device for $2.00 to $3.00 a day ($60.00 to $90.00 per month).
The Post also noted in 2019 that efforts were underway to deploy "newer technology." There is some perception that asking every driver to blow into their car's sensor before starting a car might be met with some consumer resistance. When you rent a car, how would you feel about putting your mouth on any part of it? I asked Horace Middlemeier* about his perceptions and he said he buckles his seatbelt behind him and sits on it, and that is only so that the "dinger will quit dinging." So, perhaps there would be some marketplace resistance.
But, the government has forced airbags upon us. I recall when that started, and the lamentations of car dealers that no one would ever buy a car with one. I remember mandatory seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, automobile back up cameras, catalytic converters, and more. The government has been evolving automobiles most of my life. Each safety device added to a car increases complexity of that tool, represents a chance for failure and repair needs, and adds cost to the vehicle. What if I have no need for a back up camera? What i I do not need my backseat monitored to prevent me from forgetting my passengers?
So what? The government considered mandating ignition interlocks in 2019. Many of us missed it, but in 2021, Congress mandated ignition interlocks. While we cannot say for certain how much such devices will cost, we are assured that every car sold in America will soon enough be equipped with one. And, it all happened quietly and without much fanfare. The world was distracted with SARS-CoV-2, lockdowns, life challenges, and more. While virtually no one was looking, this new mandate entered our world of freedoms and liberties.
Several years ago, I reported on a fantastic speech at the Annual Issues Symposium sponsored by NCCI. See Salim Ismail and a Life Changing Seminar (May 2015). He noted that the laws in many states require cars to have rear-view mirrors, but no car is required to have a steering wheel. This was in the context of driverless cars, and his contention that somehow no elected representative had ever foreseen the era of a driverless car and the obsolescence of the steering wheel. Is an interlock more or less important than a steering wheel in a driverless car? In today's world the driver must remain engaged even when on autopilot, but what will tomorrow bring?
National Public Radio (NPR) reported in December 2021 that "The recent infrastructure law included a provision mandating that, starting in a few years, all new cars must include some sort of technology to detect and prevent drunk driving." The key requirements for this new addition to our vehicles are broad: "it has to be able to accurately detect drunk driving, and that it has to be 'passive.'" That is, not blowing into a tube. The NPR article does not address broader issues of impairment such as fatigue, drug use, and more. It is less than clear whether the new law is specifically focused on alcohol as the NPR story suggests. According to NPR, proponents think "this particular technology could save more lives than airbags."
Motor Trend says that the new devices are expected by Congress to begin appearing in 2026. It quotes, presumably from the infrastructure bill itself, a broader requirement that such devices:
"passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired."
The use of "impaired" is seemingly broader than intoxication.
NPR reports that two innovations are under development to meet this perceived need. One is a device that samples "cabin air" and "looks for traces of alcohol." The obvious benefit is "no need to blow into a tube." This is labelled "The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS" (think of that DADSS brought to us by the MADDs). There would be "sensors . . . integrated into a vehicle's dashboard or window," which would "require a driver to blow a puff of air in the general direction of the sensor." The article notes that developers hope to one day measure "normal breathing" with these sensors. The point of measuring breathing in a broader context are not entirely clear.
There is recognition of the obvious problem. What is the impact of passenger's exhalations? Could a drunk passenger's exhalation disable the vehicle? One might picture a very frustrated Uber driver sitting stalled in front of a bar with a car load of exuberant and perhaps frustrated potential Taco Bell customers. Developers hope to make this system sophisticated enough to distinguish between the exhalations of the driver and passenger(s). And, pay attention to that main point - "disable the vehicle." Like other ignition interlocks, the big brother of impairment detection could render your car useless.
There is a second form of DADSS, in which light is directed at a driver's finger and "alcohol content of the blood" is measured "based on the light reflected back." Some see this as integrated in an "ignition button" but there is perhaps the potential for some separate touch pad in the cabin. Some will remember the fingerprint readers so popular on laptops and cell phones years ago. For some reason, you don't see those much anymore. Cars might surreptitiously collect fingerprints and share them with, well with someone. And, a passenger's finger might be used to start the car.
Beyond DADSS, some advocate instead cameras mounted in the car that would view the driver. Reportedly, Volvo has already elected this route. Proponents suggest that some cars come with such monitors now, though they are primarily interrelated with the "autopilot" style expanded cruise control systems. Today, these cameras essentially "make sure drivers are looking at the road instead of being distracted." Proponents suggest they could instead look for signs of impairment in the way the face muscles or eye movements compare to norms and predictions. Imagine someone under the stress of an emergency unable to start a car because the camera detects unexpected facial features or eye movement (maybe from pain?).
Before you ask, they note that the cameras can see in the dark and "They use infrared so that it can see (even) . . . if you're wearing sunglasses. So much for Corey Hart's solution to the world's challenges. Software would evaluate the driver's eyes and detect indicia of impairment. A potential advantage to the eye-monitoring concept is that the nystagmus demonstrated by the eyes from alcohol intoxication may likewise be demonstrated by the use of some drugs. Note that there is some question as to which drugs. With the camera(s) pointed at the driver, there is potentially less chance of passenger impairment creating issues as well.
These discussions of a camera watching you drive might dredge up the surveillance issues mentioned in previous posts. Remember Assume Everyone is Watching (September 2015)? Or, perhaps Technology and Surveillance (August 2020). There was A Button Labelled Codger Mode (June 2017), and perhaps Shall your Car Chime In (June 2016) is worth another consideration? Will the new surveillance be any less subject to abuse than Sirius Radio or OnStar, as alleged by some?
In all, there are more questions in 2022 than there are answers. The one answer is that Congress has decided that all drivers will soon enough be under constant surveillance of some form as we drive. The overarching goal of diminished impaired driving death and injury will soon result in some impact upon your personal privacy. Will the equipment report in to some data base so that someone knows how many times your car has declined to perform based on impairment? Will it be able to document and report how many times it notes "some impairment," but not enough to disable the vehicle? Think of that, what if we could prevent crimes before they happen; Minority Report (20th Century Fox, 2002). Will there be imperfections and failures in monitoring, collecting, and using data? Will the conclusions or data collected be admissible in court?
Some will likely allege that such broadly-deployed interlock devices may be seen as akin to
"an oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface of the right-hand wall. . . The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely" (George Orwell, 1984, 1949).
Others will certainly say that no one has a right to privacy in their vehicle, and some might instead argue that any privacy right is outweighed by society's interests in safety. Those debates are for another day, and perhaps one day for a court room somewhere.
Potentially, by the time that monitored driving day comes, human driving may be a thing of the past. Autonomous, driverless cars are likely coming to a road near you and eventually to pick you up for work, school, or shopping (if such pastimes still exist then in a non-virtual, non-Uber eats type, construct). Some predict that "human driving will be outlawed by 2050." As I look down the road, that will be an intriguing, and perhaps Brave New World (Aldous Huxley, 1932) to perceive. I will hear from some who will decry the references to Brave New World and 1984. I appreciate the sentiment that safety is worthwhile at any cost, and admit up front that these monitors may well not be as bad as they seem at first light. But, such devices will change our lives, impinge to some degree on our privacy, and will cost us all money.
And, the world may remain a dangerous place despite such efforts. For a recent example, one might wonder if such a system would prevent operation of a vehicle by a 13 year old. For that matter, will it take long for someone to begin publishing YouTube videos on how to side-step whatever device is next mandated? Will there be a market for having your car's monitoring system hacked and defeated? There are great reasons to prevent impaired operation of vehicles. There is great public good, and potential improvement in workplace safety, by decreasing impaired driving. However, there are many potential challenges, and significant costs, which have either not been considered or whose consideration are not being discussed in the press.
*Horace Middlemeier is a fictional character. No reference is intended to any real person, living or dead.
By Judge David Langham
Courtesy of Florida Workers' Comp
Read Also
- Aug 12, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 06, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
About The Author
About The Author
-
Judge David Langham
David Langham is the Deputy Chief Judge of Compensation Claims for the Florida Office of Judges of Compensation Claims at the Division of Administrative Hearings. He has been involved in workers’ compensation for over 25 years as an attorney, an adjudicator, and administrator. He has delivered hundreds of professional lectures, published numerous articles on workers’ compensation in a variety of publications, and is a frequent blogger on Florida Workers’ Compensation Adjudication. David is a founding director of the National Association of Workers’ Compensation Judiciary and the Professional Mediation Institute, and is involved in the Southern Association of Workers’ Compensation Administrators (SAWCA) and the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC). He is a vocal advocate of leveraging technology and modernizing the dispute resolution processes of workers’ compensation.
More by This Author
- Jun 05, 2023
- Judge David Langham
- May 20, 2023
- Judge David Langham
Read More
- Aug 12, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 06, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 05, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Aug 02, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Jul 01, 2024
- Frank Ferreri