backtop


Print 114 comment(s) - last by Manch.. on Aug 23 at 7:22 AM

Convincing consumers to embrace a device which could raise prices and have false positives is challenging

Alcohol, humanity's favorite social lubricant, is an ever controversial research topic with some calling it the deadliest drug, and others pointing to studies that suggest moderate alcohol consumption enhances learning (perhaps the real-life version of the "Ballmer curve").  But one thing that most can agree on is that intoxication and cars are a dangerous mixture.

I. NHTSA: Five Years to Commercializing Driver Intoxication Detection

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) -- an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT) -- has been working a coalition of manufacturers (the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS)) to produce an advanced in-car sensor that would refuse to start the vehicle if it detects the driver is intoxicated.  

The system they're developing is dubbed "Driver Alcohol Detection System for safety" (DADSS) -- perhaps a well intentioned play on the nation's largest anti-drunk driving activist organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

Drunk driver
The government and activist groups want to make sure a drunk driver can never get in a car and drive in the first place. [Image Source: CNN]

After nearly $40 USD in federal funding ($5.8M USD in 2008, $2M USD/yr. in 2009-2010, and ~$10M USD in 2011-2013) and five years of progress, that project is approaching the end of its first phase, and a technology demonstration has been promised.

In a letter to the CEO of top automotive manufacturers, NHTSA Chief David Strickland said that significant progress had been made on the private-public collaboration.  With two "very, very effective" prototypes from separate OEM partners produced, he believes a commercial product is within reach.  On how soon we will see such a device, he comments, "We probably have another five years of work to go.  It will be available as an option by manufacturers, and I think it’s a real way forward."

II. Motivations

Why build such a device?  The motivation is actually surprisingly straightforward.

Government statistics from 2010 reveal that drunk driving is the number one crime in the country, with 1.4 million driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) arrests a year.  Of fatal car crashes approximately half of the drivers involved were under the influence of alcohol or other psychoactive substances.  

To try to curb drunk driving, the government by 2009 had instituted nearly 150,000 in-car interlock systems [source] to habitual DUI offenders.  An interlock system won't allow a vehicle to start without having the user perform a breathalyzer test.

Drunk Driving
Drunk driving remains the nation's most common crime and a key factor in roughly half of car crashes. [Image Source: DWI Blog]

While functional, interlock systems are far from perfect.  First, if a non-drunk passenger (or even companion riding separately) blows into them, they can start the car, even if the driver is drunk.  Second, they are too expensive and invasive to deploy to all vehicles. 

One solution would be to have a more general alcohol detector that scanned the entire air content of the car, but again this would be problematic as drunk passengers could trigger a false positive.  And such a solution would be more expensive, likely, as it would require the detection of smaller quantities of airborne alcohol versus a system that isolates a driver's breath (e.g. the interlock).

From a big picture perspective, the number of people in the U.S. still choosing to drive drunk and being able to do so clearly illustrates that the deterrents to date -- DUI fines, prison time, and in-car prevention systems -- aren't stopping drunk drivers often enough.

II. Show Me The Prototype

The NHTSA/industry program launched in 2008, with $5.8M USD in federal funding.  It has focused on two different emerging technologies -- near-infrared (NIR) tissue spectroscopy and distant breath spectroscopy.  The former technique would require the driver to press their finger against a location.  Eventually this could perhaps be embedded into the steering wheel.  The latter method would be remote, requiring no direct contact as it measures the amount of alcohol in the exhaled breath from a distance.  Differentiating between driver and passenger intoxication, though, requires strategic sensor placement, multiple sensors, and filtering algorithms.

After five years Congress is still funding the program, but desires some sort of results.  Mr. Strickland has promised a working prototype will be demonstrated by the end of the year.  He comments, "A tangible result of that work will be demonstrated later this year, when a research vehicle including both touch-based and breath-based detection technologies is available for further evaluation.  I have referred to it as a ‘moonshot’ for traffic safety with initially long odds but the potential for dramatically powerful results if we are successful."

Drunk driving TruTouchWorking prototypes are expensive, bulky, intrusive, and can yield false positives.  (The DADSS "TruTouch" tisue NIR spectroscopy system is shown.)

If the NHTSA and ACTS can pull of a successful demo, they next have to plan out and agree to a path for Phase II -- the path to commercialization.  MADD National President Jan Withers praised the progress thus far, stating, "Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, DADSS for short, is our hope for the future to ELIMINATE drunk driving."

That said, figuring out a route to commercialization requires many parties -- automakers, insurers, consumers, civil liberties groups, activist groups (e.g. MADD), and the government -- to all agree to a route they can all live with.  Balancing often competing interests (e.g. the desire to reduce auto fatalities versus the consumer demand to not have a device that produces false positives or raises vehicle prices) makes this project a "moonshot" indeed.  But it'll be interesting to watch what the coalition brings to the table as Phase I concludes.

Sources: The Detroit News, DADSS [homepage], [white paper]



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/21/2013 8:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I haven't had a single alcoholic drink in over 10 years. My wife in about 5. Why should we need to pay for the expense of these sensors in our cars?

Will these sensors stop impaired driving with people who...

... drive tired
... have taken prescription sedatives
... have taken mind-altering street drugs
... who are blitzed on pot?
... who are distracted with texting while driving 60 mi/hr down a highway in the fast lane?

Hell no. Yet there are just as many or more accidents caused by the conditions I just described.

No thanks. If you are convicted of drunk driving, then sure - put one in their car, but for those of us that don't frigging well drink - leave us out of it!!


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Labotomizer on 8/22/2013 11:41:39 AM , Rating: 2
This is such a terrible argument against it. And I'm not saying I'm for the installation of these devices but your argument is flat out terrible.

By your logic, making theft illegal doesn't stop people from stealing cars, so why bother? Making smoking crack illegal doesn't stop crack from being smoked, so why bother? Seriously, awful argument.

And do you have any idea how many of the people who die in crashes involving drunk drivers are NOT THE ONES DRIVING? I'm all for personal responsibility. But when you're driving drunk it's likely you will significantly impact other people's lives.

There are valid concerns with invasion of privacy. And concerns about malfunctions preventing you from driving your car, of course sometimes the ignition malfunctions but that doesn't mean we do away with ignitions... But making up silly arguments about why it shouldn't happen isn't the way to go about it.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By wookie1 on 8/22/2013 12:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
I would disagree and say his point is very valid. Why should he have to pay to have a device in his car that 1) takes away his liberty and 2) will not legitimately stop him from doing something dangerous since he wouldn't have done it anyway. Drinking and driving is already illegal, so the rest of your arguments don't make sense. There are even DUI checkpoints! There are no stolen car checkpoints (that would be unconstitutional).

Ignition malfunction is one thing, but having to prove to your car that you haven't been drinking is ridiculous. Especially since it's so much more dangerous to drive when tired.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Manch on 8/23/2013 7:22:47 AM , Rating: 2
well you need the ignition to start the car so bad example...

I think the reason why most people are against this is because they dont feel they should have to be burden by intrusive systems for crimes they have not commited.


RE: The big brother/nanny state
By Manch on 8/23/2013 7:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
If you get busted then sure by all means, put one in their car at their expense! Virginia does this with those breathalyzer machines. They still dont work since someone can blow for you. People will find away around these too. Making everyone have one of these is just mind boggling retarded.


"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki