OPINION: When will traffic technology that can save lives be mandated in the US?

Each year there are about 40,000 road deaths in the US, with the vast majority of these involving drivers who are either speeding, impaired or both. Technology exists that could help to lower the number of fatalities, but passing laws to require its use is proving difficult. Here, professional engineer Dan E Reider takes a look at the current efforts underway to pass new laws and asks how close they might be to becoming reality

There are currently two areas of legislation being discussed in the United States to help reduce the number of fatalities occurring on the roads with new technology. The first is around preventing drunk or impaired drivers from operating vehicles, the second is around limiting speeds.

These discussions have been ongoing for more than a decade at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the US Department of Transportation (USDOT), the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), in Congress and at various other agencies.

Although these discussions have seemingly been creeping along for a while, there is more hope than ever before that some of the proposed measures will be in place before the end of this decade. Up to this point, the public has not been very aware of what was being discussed but this is changing. Along with more recent support by the public, there is also some strong opposition to some of the features being considered. Addressing the two areas in turn, they are…

1. Preventing driving under the influence of drink or drugs

When the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was passed by Congress on November 15, 2021, NHTSA was given a mandate to determine what technologies could be implemented to prevent intoxicated drivers from operating a vehicle.

The measure stated that the NHTSA “should issue a new regulation only if it meets the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety, which states that a proposed standard must be reasonable, practicable, and reduce traffic crashes and associated deaths, among other factors”.

NHSTA was given three years from November 2021 to present the new regulations and, if they were unable to, then provide a reason why they were not able to finalize the regulation. Later, in 2022, there was an unsuccessful effort by three Senators (South Dakota, Indiana, and Texas) to repeal this mandate.

The Infrastructure Act required NHTSA to determine what technologies could be used to detect driver impairment or measure blood alcohol levels and then, if exceeding certain limits, prevent the vehicle from being operated.

At the end of 2023, the NHTSA published a document which made it clear that they had not reached any conclusions and were still exploring the various technologies that could best detect and measure driver impairment. The agency was quoted as saying “technical challenges, such as distinguishing between different impairment states, avoiding false positives, and determining appropriate prevention countermeasures still remain”.

In addition to determining what technologies might best detect driver impairment, the system implemented would then have to determine how the vehicle would be prevented from operating or, if already in motion, what vehicle response should then occur.

One of the bigger concerns was related to the false positives. Ann Carlson, acting head of NHTSA said that even if the systems is 99.9% accurate in detecting impaired drivers, that would generate a million false positives per day thus preventing those drivers from being able to drive their vehicles.

If the NHTSA cannot meet its deadline of November 2024, it will have to present the reasons for this and estimate a date by which they can complete the task. If the deadline is not met, this would also mean that it is unlikely for manufacturers to meet the goal of including this technology in vehicles produced in 2026 or even 2027 which would be very unfortunate considering it has already been three years since the legislation was first introduced.

At this point, it seems unlikely that the technology, whatever it ends up looking like, would have a long enough time to test to ensure it is suitable to be installed in millions of new vehicles. Without sufficiently long enough testing, it would be a huge mistake to then require the technology be placed in the new vehicles.

Given that it is almost the midpoint of 2024, If testing started in early 2025 and about two years are needed for adequate testing and maybe another year to resolve any outstanding concerns, then another two years for the manufacturers to the technology into their vehicles, we would have vehicles on the roads at the end of this decade.

Some of the technologies currently being considered include the following:

1. Air sensors mounted in the steering wheel or on the dash to detect alcohol or carbon dioxide in a driver’s breath.

2. Touch sensors, probably in the steering wheel, to determine blood alcohol content in capillaries directly below the skin.

3. Erratic eye or head motion.

4. Lane departure or erratic steering.

While there is little discussion about the detection of drug use by drivers, some have mentioned that erratic eye or head motion or lane departures or erratic steering could also be used for that purpose if those features are included in the new technology.

NPR reported in December 2023 that Ann Carlson stated “Impaired driving crashes are 100% preventable – there’s simply no excuse or reason to drive impaired by alcohol or drugs”. Despite this statement, there does not appear to be any mention of finding a way to prevent drugged driving in the regulations being considered.

One of the more frequently asked question is what about using a breathalyzer which has been used for many years as an ignition interlock device in the vehicles of convicted DUI offenders? The response we see is that this action, the task of having to breath into a breathalyzer tube, would just take too much effort on the driver’s part every time they entered the vehicle, and the goal of the proposed technology should make detection virtually effortless.

Another question being asked, and maybe being asked more than any questions about the technologies being considered, is the question of why are we going to be making law abiding citizens pay for these devices in their vehicles?

Some believe that the government is overreaching and that, if they wanted to, an impaired driver would find some way around the technology. Overall, reports seem to indicate good support from the general public but some of that support may dwindle depending upon what the final technology ultimately looks like.

2. Tackling excessive speed

The second piece of legislation deals with the second leading cause of traffic fatalities, behind distracted driving and ahead of impaired driving, which is speeding. In 2022, there was a vehicle crash in Nevada resulting in nine fatalities.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the crash was the result of excessive speeds and drug use. This event, along with more than 12,000 driving fatalities in 2021 due to speeding, prompted the agency to ask for the implementation of technology in vehicles that would reduce a driver’s ability to drive at excessive speeds.

The recommendations of the NTSB included such things as:

1. Intelligent speed assistance (ISA) technology to warn a driver when exceeding the posted speed limit.

2. Develop measures to reduce repeated speeding.

3. Implementation of vehicle interlocks for persons who continue to speed.

4. The use of ISA to keep a vehicle from exceeding the posted speed limit over a certain level.

After issuing their report, the NTSB asked for suggestions and comments from the public. The responses varied widely from the government was overreaching if vehicle speeds are to be automatically controlled, the main problem is with the design of the roads and not the drivers, and if anything is to be implemented, it should not be more than the ISA warning system.

One argument against any speed controls which seems to get strong support is the position that excessive speeds are sometimes a necessity to avoid a situation such as a crash, an object in the roadway, or an out-of-control vehicle.

In a poll of a 1,000 people conducted by The Zebra in 2019, 68% of drivers would not want any type of speed controls on their vehicle and only 14% believed that speed controls would be helpful in reducing highway fatalities. The largest demographics supporting speed limiting devices were those over the age of 65. We are not aware of a more recent poll but suspect that the numbers in favor of speed control in vehicles probably has not changed that much.

The NTSB responded to address some of the negative comments saying that the technology they were considering would have a feature to override the speed limiter where the situation warranted higher speeds such as to avoid an accident, etc.

While NTSB is pushing for national legislation, some states are introducing their own legislation requiring similar speed limiting technology be installed in new vehicles sold in their states. California, for example, introduced a bill earlier this year in which a vehicle’s speed limiter would prevent a vehicle, with the exception of emergency vehicles, from exceeding the speed limit by more than 10mph.

In 2022, the European Union (EU) passed regulations requiring all new vehicles sold by 2024 to utilize ISA technology. However, the car manufacturers are allowed to choose one of four types of systems to install in the vehicle. All systems are dependent upon signage cameras and GPS to determine the posted speed limit.

The technology implemented must exceed 90% accuracy. Two of the systems warn the driver by either an audible alert or a vibration alert that they are exceeding the posted speed. A third system automatically pushes back against the driver’s accelerator pedal pressure. The last system is the most controlling where the power input to the accelerator pedal is disabled as the vehicle speed exceeds the posted speed.

In the EU as well as other countries such as Japan and Australia and places like Ontario and Quebec, speed limiters are required on commercial trucks over a certain weight.  The limiters generally do not allow these trucks to operate at speeds in excess of 65mph (55mph in Japan).

The United States generally does not have any limitations on truck speeds other than the posted limit. The Cullum Owings Large Truck Safe Operating Act of 2019 is trying to change this. This bill would require that trucks in excess of 26,000lb to be equipped with speed limiting devices set to a maximum speed of 65mph.

The primary reason given to limit the heavy truck speeds is to reduce the amount of time it takes these vehicles to slow down in an emergency situation. A study by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation reported that at-fault truck crashes fell, with the new limited speeds, by 73% and fatalities dropped by almost 25%. The EU was quoted as estimating a similar amount of reductions in fatalities.

It seems likely that at some point in the next few years some legislation could be passed limiting vehicle speeds on a national level.

The legislation could include one or more of the following features:

1. Vehicle speed warning.

2. Speed limiting to 10mph over the posted speed with an override feature of some type.

3. Speed limiting to 10mph over the posted speed when the posted speed is 45mph or greater and 5mph over the posted speed when the posted speed is 40mph or less.

4. Speed limiting is disable for periods not greater than 30 seconds.

5. Provide speed limiting technology in each new vehicle and the driver could decide to activate or not (This could impact significantly a driver’s insurance rate).

It appears that almost any mandatory legislation passed will be hugely unpopular. However, given that 10,000 or more persons are killed on the roads each year as the result of excessive speeds, one would think that the implementation of some technology to improve road safety would be warranted and welcomed by the public. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.