Are You Drunk? Your Car May Someday Know.

The US Department of Transportation announced yesterday a new in-vehicle technology that is being created to determine if a motorist is intoxicated.

Do We Really Need Alcohol Detection In Our Cars?

Anti lock breaks. Safety belts. Air bags.

What do all these have in common? They all are features that benefit the driver and passenger in event of a collision. While we all agree they make our driving more safer, we also gladly pay for these features on our vehicles.

But what about a feature that detects the alcohol level in your bloodstream before you drive? Would you pay for such a device if required by law, even if you don't drink and drive?

Statistically, Drunk Driving Fatalities Are On A Decline

In 2006, The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism issued a Fatal Traffic Crashes Surveillance Report looking at trends in traffic related fatalities between 1982 and 2004. Figures show that the number of instances of fatal crashes that were alcoholic related has been on a steady decline:

In a press release released yesterday from the Department of Transportation, they stated that this figure is even lower yet:

"In 2009, 10,839 people died nationwide in crashes involving a drunk driver."

Do we need to earmark tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money to develop this technology, when alcohol related traffic casualties are on a steady decline?

Statistically, Drunk Driving Related Deaths Are Very Low Compared To Other Causes of Death

As stated above, each year, 10,000 people die from alcohol related incidents from drunk drivers with a blood alcohol content over 0.8%. To put that in perspective, this is just 0.00000253% of the US population (based on 370 million people).

Here is how alcohol related traffic deaths stack up against the leading causes of death in the United States:

Heart Disease	617,527
Malignant neoplasms	566,137
Chronic lower respiratory disease	141,075
Cerebrovascular disease	133,750
Accidents	121,207
Alzheimer's	82,476
Diabetes	70,601
Influenza and pneumonia	56,335
Nephritis. nephrotic, nephrosis	48,283
Septicemia	35,961
Suicide	35,933
Chronic liver disease	29,963
Hypertension	25,823
Parkinson's Disease	20,507
Homicide	17,837
Fatalities Drunk Driving (*)	9,000

Source: US Center For Disease Control
(*) Not part of data set but used as a comparison

How many of these victims were the actual driver who was drunk? How many of these fatalities were from innocent people? I do not have figures on this but it would be interesting to know.

In-Vehicle Alcohol Monitoring Legislature

Last year, there were several bills slated for debate in Congress, calling for funds to provide research for in-vehicle alcoholic monitoring.

• H.R. 4890: Research of Alcohol Detection Systems for Stopping
• S.3039 - Research of Alcohol Detection Systems for Stopping Alcohol-related Fatalities Everywhere Act of 2010
• S.3302 - Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 2010

If you look at the entirety of the bill, everyone of these were cut from the same mold. Each asks for $60 million dollars from 2011 through 2015 from The Highway Trust Fund to research an in-vehicle device to prevent drunk driving.

All were never passed. These bills were duplicate works of others in copy and paste fashion. It puzzles me, why government works this poorly and can't come together to be on the same page.

The DADSS Program

Leadership behind the existing non-intrusive alcoholic vehicle technology is being driven by the Driver Alcohol Detection System For Safety (DADSS) group. This is a private company consisting of partnerships between the National Highway Transportation Safety Alliance (NTSA) and the Automotive Coalition For Traffic Safety (ACTS).

Their goal by the end of 2013 is to create a prototype that can be used and installed in a vehicle to prevent alcohol impaired drivers from turning on the ignition.

The company has given out grants to three companies for Phase 1 development at $400,000 each.

• Alcohol Countermeasure Systems,Inc. of Toronto, Canada
• TruTouch Technologies, Inc. of Albuquerque, New Mexico
• Autoliv Development AB of Vårgårda, Sweden

Additional money in the amount of $2.5 million is given to each participant who passes Phase 1.

Who Stands To Benefit?

From a monetary point of view, it would be the car manufacturers. One look at the ACTS coalition list and you will find every major car manufacturer in the world:

• BMW
• Chrysler
• Ford
• General Motors
• Jaguar
• Land Rover
• Mazda
• Mercedes Benz
• Mitsubishi
• Nissan
• Porsche
• Toyota
• Volkswagen

Let's consider the fact that each year, 16 million new cars are purchased in the United States. Assume that the drunk driver detection device costs $100 per vehicle to make by the original part manufacturer. The automaker then takes the part, adds in his cost due to assembly and labor, and adds additional profit. This cost gets passed onto the consumer like you and me. Lets say that the auto manufacturer's cost is $100 and he adds another $100 for profit. What's that in total annual profit? $1.60 billion per year. Of course, this is in the case where the government enforces its use on all new vehicles.

So there is vested interest in seeing this technology being successful - from an auto manufacturer point of view. But within the consumer's eye, just what is so beneficial about it to have to reach into our pockets to pay for this device?

Auto Insurance Industry Needs To Buy In

I believe it will be a hard sell to the American public to put the feature into vehicles increasing its price. Certainly, people are not going to be happy if the auto manufacturer tries to slide it in as a safety feature. The "Are You Drunk Sensor" isn't going to be too popular. It may just be an insult to some.

So there needs to be an incentive. One is to have the government offer a reimbursement to owners who purchase the device.

The other, is to get the auto insurance industry to give each car owner a reduction in their auto insurance premium.

Some Gotchas To Consider

So you are pulled over by a cop for suspected DUI. You show him the in-vehicle alcohol reading. Does he believe it? How does he know that the reading is accurate, let alone not a fake? He would ask you to get out of the car, and run some sobriety tests won't he? And at that point, its a judgement call. He could decide to take you in. And if he does, what if the breathalyzer test at the police department has a different reading? Most importantly, which reading wins over in a court of law? If the police station does, then wont' you sue the car manufacturer for letting you drive? And if the police station reading is wrong, won't you sue them?

Another consideration to think about. What if this alcoholic detection device requires the driver to touch the door handles or steering wheel cover. How can any transdermal technology be used to measure alcohol in the blood stream when people defeat it by using gloves or covering the steering wheel? Or what if people use sunglasses or eye wear to prevent detection through an ocular system? Will in those cases cause the system to just not let you drive - even if it is on a voluntary basis?

Not only does the technology have to determine alcoholic content through its own means, but it also has to determine if it is being duped. And if it misdiagnosis completely? You can't even start your own car and have to take it into repair of which you will incur more expense.

The other issue is that how long do we expect for every car in the United States to conform to this standard? Suppose someone has a 2010 vehicle that doesn't have the in-vehicle alcoholic monitoring system in it. Say the new law goes into effect starting 2014. Am I not entitled to drive my car without the device? And who says that its going to even fit within my car? Not only that but for those that don't use it, what if they kill someone while being drunk 10 years later? There's a phased in time component here. By then, at the rate of the decline in alcohol related deaths (remember the chart above?), the number could be cut further in half.

Summary

I really don't think this is going to go well with the general public. People are going to question why they may be forced to use the technology. Some will see it as being too invasive - even though it may designed not to be. Others will see it as being a loss in your rights. For people who do not drink, nor even drink and drive, they are going to see it as a nuisance and an extra out of pocket expense. Attorney's and judges are going to have so many conflicting cases on hand.

And if per chance, that this is not a required device to be installed in your car, then why even waste tax payer money on it in the first place?