48 ms·

Of course every car already has a non-remote kill switch: turn the key or press the power button. So merely talking about a kill switch in cars is imprecise. B

by mcv 3y ago

Of course every car already has a non-remote kill switch: turn the key or press the power button. So merely talking about a kill switch in cars is imprecise. But not only is this article imprecise in its criticism of the law, it sounds to me like the law (which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? How well has that technology been going lately? The article may be bad, but the law also sounds bad. This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill, but deserves some discussion on its own.

eesmith 3y ago
> which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. The technology exists. The law is at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684... . The definition is: In this section: (1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology'' means a system that-- (A) can-- (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; (B) can-- (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B). In the findings: (4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually; and That publication is at https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-could-prevent-more-than-a-fourth-of-u-s-road-fatalities https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-c... . """Manufacturers such as Volvo have experimented with offering alcohol-detection systems as optional equipment. A public-private partnership called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) project is also road-testing a passive alcohol sensor that detects the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) by measuring the ambient air in the vehicle. How many lives the technology might save would depend on how it is implemented.""" Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety lists two technologies, "Breath System" and "Touch System" at https://dadss.org/ https://dadss.org/ with https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technology-be-in-u-s-cars-and-trucks/ https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technolo... listing timelines showing the technology exists, and should de deployable well within the time limits of the legislation. > You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? See the DADSS link. See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – A VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY APPROACH TO REDUCING ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING – A STATUS UPDATE", which also points to "SAE J3214 standard, Breath-Based Alcohol Detection System, finalized in January 2021, which was specifically developed to provide the testing specifications adopted for breath sensors in fleet vehicles" (available For $114 at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ ). See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – RISK BASED APPROACH TO ALCOHOL SENSING OUTCOMES MODELING" describing how they balance the issues. > And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? The legislation says only "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". It directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to figure out the details. It could be that preventing the car from starting is determined to be the only requirement. > This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill This looks very much like what goes into giant bills. DADSS has been in development for over a decade. Nothing seems wrong with the law.
- Sanzig 3y ago
  Air sampling in the cabin might make sense for a fleet vehicle on a job site where nobody is supposed to have consumed alcohol, but it is a terrible idea for a privately owned passenger car. Imagine you're the designated driver after a night out: you haven't had a drop of alcohol to drink, but your passengers have, and because you're all breathing the same air you'll trip the sensor.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    Yes, quoting the risks paper, "policy makers must define performance criteria for these devices". What amount of error rate is low enough? Even air bags "occasionally fail to deploy in higher speed crashes or deploy at lower speeds than anticipated, resulting in injuries and deaths that would otherwise not be expected". A quick look at the literature says DADSS tests your scenario. In "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – PILOT FIELD OPERATIONAL TESTS (PFOT) VEHICLE INSTRUMENTATION AND INTEGRATION OF DADSS TECHNOLOGY" at https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/26/26ESV-000262.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/26/26ESV-000262.pd... > After comprehensive research that investigated optimal sensor placement in numerous locations within the vehicle, the sensor was adapted for installation in the DADSS research vehicles in four different positions: above the steering column, above the glove box, in the passenger’s door panel and in the driver’s door panel. These positions improved analysis of the impact of cabin air flow and the driver’s position on alcohol measurements as well as optimized performance. It also allows a sober driver to operate the vehicle while a dosed passenger can provide samples for analysis. and in proposed field testing: > Drivers will not be permitted to consume alcohol and only alcohol-free measurements will be obtained from the driver side sensors. Passengers will be asked to consume two different amounts of alcohol, approaching a breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) of 0.02-0.03% and 0.04-0.05%, respectively.
- mcv 3y ago
  > a passive alcohol sensor that detects the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) by measuring the ambient air in the vehicle. How can you detect the driver's blood-alcohol content by measuring ambient air in a vehicle that might include passengers? Should a taxi get blocked from transporting drunk passengers? And how does this work in a convertible with open top? I don't think it can be passive. I think the driver is going to have to blow into a breathalyzer before they can start the engine.

by mcv 3y ago

eesmith 3y ago

> which I haven't actually read) is also imprecise in mandating technology that doesn't currently exist. The technology exists. The law is at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684... . The definition is: In this section: (1) Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.--The term ``advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology'' means a system that-- (A) can-- (i) passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected; (B) can-- (i) passively and accurately detect whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration described in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code; and (ii) prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if a blood alcohol concentration above the legal limit is detected; or (C) is a combination of systems described in subparagraphs (A) and (B). In the findings: (4) according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology can prevent more than 9,400 alcohol-impaired driving fatalities annually; and That publication is at https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-could-prevent-more-than-a-fourth-of-u-s-road-fatalities https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/alcohol-detection-systems-c... . """Manufacturers such as Volvo have experimented with offering alcohol-detection systems as optional equipment. A public-private partnership called the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) project is also road-testing a passive alcohol sensor that detects the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) by measuring the ambient air in the vehicle. How many lives the technology might save would depend on how it is implemented.""" Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety lists two technologies, "Breath System" and "Touch System" at https://dadss.org/ https://dadss.org/ with https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technology-be-in-u-s-cars-and-trucks/ https://dadss.org/news/updates/when-might-the-dadss-technolo... listing timelines showing the technology exists, and should de deployable well within the time limits of the legislation. > You want a computer to decide on whether the driver is too drunk to drive, but how do you determine that? See the DADSS link. See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000293.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – A VEHICLE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY APPROACH TO REDUCING ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING – A STATUS UPDATE", which also points to "SAE J3214 standard, Breath-Based Alcohol Detection System, finalized in January 2021, which was specifically developed to provide the testing specifications adopted for breath sensors in fleet vehicles" (available For $114 at https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3214_202101/ ). See https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/27/27ESV-000291.pd... for "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – RISK BASED APPROACH TO ALCOHOL SENSING OUTCOMES MODELING" describing how they balance the issues. > And what do you do if you decide the driver is too drunk? Killing the car is a terrible idea if this decision is made in busy traffic at speed. Should an autopilot take over? The legislation says only "prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected". It directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to figure out the details. It could be that preventing the car from starting is determined to be the only requirement. > This shouldn't be hidden away in another giant bill This looks very much like what goes into giant bills. DADSS has been in development for over a decade. Nothing seems wrong with the law.

Sanzig 3y ago
Air sampling in the cabin might make sense for a fleet vehicle on a job site where nobody is supposed to have consumed alcohol, but it is a terrible idea for a privately owned passenger car. Imagine you're the designated driver after a night out: you haven't had a drop of alcohol to drink, but your passengers have, and because you're all breathing the same air you'll trip the sensor.
- eesmith 3y ago
  Yes, quoting the risks paper, "policy makers must define performance criteria for these devices". What amount of error rate is low enough? Even air bags "occasionally fail to deploy in higher speed crashes or deploy at lower speeds than anticipated, resulting in injuries and deaths that would otherwise not be expected". A quick look at the literature says DADSS tests your scenario. In "DRIVER ALCOHOL DETECTION SYSTEM FOR SAFETY (DADSS) – PILOT FIELD OPERATIONAL TESTS (PFOT) VEHICLE INSTRUMENTATION AND INTEGRATION OF DADSS TECHNOLOGY" at https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/26/26ESV-000262.pdf https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/26/26ESV-000262.pd... > After comprehensive research that investigated optimal sensor placement in numerous locations within the vehicle, the sensor was adapted for installation in the DADSS research vehicles in four different positions: above the steering column, above the glove box, in the passenger’s door panel and in the driver’s door panel. These positions improved analysis of the impact of cabin air flow and the driver’s position on alcohol measurements as well as optimized performance. It also allows a sober driver to operate the vehicle while a dosed passenger can provide samples for analysis. and in proposed field testing: > Drivers will not be permitted to consume alcohol and only alcohol-free measurements will be obtained from the driver side sensors. Passengers will be asked to consume two different amounts of alcohol, approaching a breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) of 0.02-0.03% and 0.04-0.05%, respectively.
mcv 3y ago
> a passive alcohol sensor that detects the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) by measuring the ambient air in the vehicle. How can you detect the driver's blood-alcohol content by measuring ambient air in a vehicle that might include passengers? Should a taxi get blocked from transporting drunk passengers? And how does this work in a convertible with open top? I don't think it can be passive. I think the driver is going to have to blow into a breathalyzer before they can start the engine.