There are myriads of reasons to avoid a lot of new production vehicles such as design flaws brought on by reduced emission expectations or increased horsepower in motors that cannot sustain it for what I would consider the proper lifespan of a car. Subaru, Ford, Chevy, even newer Toyotas are experiencing catastrophic failures at or near 100k. Or less. Having big brother in the passenger seat dictating how I drive is unacceptable.

The current family lineup is: 2003 tundra, 2006 Four Runner, 2009 Avalon, and the newest a 2011 Highlander. None will ever have this add on googaw. All are intrinsically reliable and long lived with proper care and upkeep. The high prices I keep seeing in the used market seem to indicate that I am not alone.

This story was never verified or linked besides some goofy X-post, right?

Quick search hits on Yahoo, Geekspin, Motor1.com, etc. but nothing that resembles a reputable source.

^^ It's all over the internet, kinda all of the sudden, but it's NOT as if it was 'never verified or linked besides some goofy X-post'. It's just that the NHTSA hasn't finalized rules for it's implementation that it's not yet reported by the 'reputable' / legacy media sources. Here's a link to a FOX Business report from 2021 when the Infrastructure Bill was passed by Congress:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/po...k-driving-technology

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:
This story was never verified or linked besides some goofy X-post, right?

Quick search hits on Yahoo, Geekspin, Motor1.com, etc. but nothing that resembles a reputable source.

Here is the specific section of the bill explained:

Section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Public Law 117-58, enacted November 15, 2021), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, is titled “Advanced Impaired Driving Technology.”

It directs the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA) to issue a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) requiring new passenger motor vehicles to include advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology.
Key Provisions

The section includes congressional findings on the scale of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities (noting they account for roughly one-third of U.S. highway deaths) and defines the required technology.

Definition of “advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” (from subsection (b)):
It means a system that:

(A) Passively monitors the performance of a driver to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired and prevents or limits motor vehicle operation if impairment is detected; or

(B) Passively and accurately detects whether the driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is at or above the legal limit in section 163(a) of title 23, U.S. Code (generally 0.08 g/dL) and prevents or limits vehicle operation if that limit is met or exceeded; or
(C) Combines the above capabilities.

The technology must be passive (i.e., it works without the driver actively providing a breath sample or other input, unlike traditional ignition interlocks).

Rulemaking Requirements (subsection (c))

NHTSA must issue a final rule prescribing the FMVSS not later than 3 years after enactment (i.e., by November 15, 2024).
The standard applies to passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date specified in the rule.
If NHTSA determines it cannot meet the deadline due to technological or other issues, it may delay the rule by up to an additional 3 years (with reporting requirements).

NHTSA is required to issue periodic reports to Congress on progress, available technologies, research (including the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety or DADSS program), and any potential delays.

Purpose and Context

The goal is to reduce impaired-driving crashes (alcohol, drugs, fatigue, distraction, etc.) by embedding prevention technology directly into vehicles. Proponents, including groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), see it as a major step forward in vehicle safety. Critics have raised concerns about privacy, false positives, technological readiness, cost, and potential overreach (sometimes colloquially called a “government kill switch,” though the law focuses specifically on impairment detection rather than remote government control).
Current Status (as of 2026)

NHTSA has been conducting research, stakeholder engagement, and rulemaking activities related to Section 24220, including work on driver monitoring systems and passive BAC detection. As of early 2026, the final FMVSS had not yet been issued, and implementation timelines (potentially affecting new vehicles in the late 2020s) remain under development. Some bills have been introduced in Congress to repeal or modify the provision.

For the official text, see the enrolled version of H.R. 3684 (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) on Congress.gov. NHTSA also publishes annual or required reports on its website detailing implementation efforts.

I see is having failure written all over it

could this not be considered an unreasonable search for someone that doesn't drink?

if it disables the vehicle for someone that isn't drinking, is that an unreasonable seizure of your property

we have laws against murder, bank robbery, kiddie porn and millions of others - and yet we still have all those problems

what could point to the fact that this will successfully solve the problem?

waste of money, waste of time and I suspect it will hopefully get shot down with a serious legal challenge

^^^^

I’m telling ya, this technology is going to get somebody killed. Only then, will it get the negative attention it deserves.

But if it saves just one life...

… a politician will feel like he (or she) has saved the world.

What if you are wearing mirror sunglasses?

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:
^^^^

I’m telling ya, this technology is going to get somebody killed. Only then, will it get the negative attention it deserves.

Yes. Just wait until they push an update to the car with bad code in it written by somebody in Mommy's basement who has never driven.

I watched a video over the weekend of a YouTuber with a brand new Ford Superduty with the Godzilla engine that couldn't tow for 6 weeks because of bad code update pushed to truck via satellite. Then, when the much overdo update is pushed it has a different programming flaw and he lost trailer brakes while towing a 14,000 lb load. Lucky he didn't kill himself or others.

One bad piece of code pushed via satellite to the interior camera AI technology and it could leave out steps like warnings, steer safely to side of road, etc.

I'm a 30 year oil & gas engineer with background that includes risk management. One of the areas I've been involved with is the distributed control systems (DCS) that control the operation and safety systems of refineries, offshore platforms, plants, pipelines, etc. We follow an ISO process that prioritizes stability and programming changes occur in off-line back-up server in a test environment, and the consequences of an error is very high (e.g. loss of control can result hydrocarbon release with different severity levels ranging from environmental clean-up to mass casualty explosions). The automotive industry follows a different ISO process with a "shadow" mode for testing updates, but the difference is they prioritize speed and vehicles are allowed to be shipped with bugs to be fixed later with over the air updates even though loss of control can result in mass casualty incident (e.g. the aforementioned Superduty's loss of brakes causes truck with 14000 lb load to hit a school bus). They're turning their customer into the test environment which is unethical IMO.

And there’s another reason why I’m spending around $2500 this year to keep my 158k 2012 Wrangler on the road.