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: Used cars and hacking
By gamerk2 on 8/22/2013 1:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
To answer your last question: Yes, you can. You can also walk, take a cab, carpool, hitchhike, or some form of mass transit. So this, in no way, infringes on the right of an individual to travel.

You do NOT have the right to drive a car while drunk (illegal in all US jurisdictions). And that's what this about, not "big government", not freedom of travel, not individual rights.

And to all your "why should I have to have one installed" people out there: You likely haven't had someone you know killed by a drunk driver yet. Don't worry though: Odds are you will. Wonder if you'll change your tune then...

[And if you want to be REALLY technical, for all you "small government" types: Where in the US Constitution is the right to travel explicitly protected?

Hence the flaws of a strict reading of the US Constitution, and why Federalists hated the Bill of Rights: Because a strict reading, protecting ONLY the rights that are explicitly granted, results in a gradual loss of rights as a whole. Just look at what's happening to privacy rights now: Its not explicitly protected, so the courts are gradually rolling back your right to privacy.]

RE: Used cars and hacking
By retrospooty on 8/22/2013 1:38:36 PM , Rating: 3
It's not even about rights or intentions anymore... It's about the govt. trying to monitor and mandate everything in our lives. They just wind up coming up with rules and regulations that cost too much and dont fix the issue they intend to. This WILL NOT stop drunk driving any more than background checks stopped the school massacres or the govt watching our internet/credit card activity stopped the Boston bombers. The world is full of dangerous people and they will continue to be dangerous. The world is full of stupid people and they will continue to be stupid. You cant mandate the stupid out of stupid people. It just doesn't work.

RE: Used cars and hacking
By M'n'M on 8/22/2013 3:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hence the flaws of a strict reading of the US Constitution, and why Federalists hated the Bill of Rights: Because a strict reading, protecting ONLY the rights that are explicitly granted, results in a gradual loss of rights as a whole. Just look at what's happening to privacy rights now: Its not explicitly protected, so the courts are gradually rolling back your right to privacy.

That isn't a strict reading, it's an incorrect reading. You are correct that the BoR was seen then as having the potential to be misinterpreted, as you seem to be doing. To that end they included the 9'th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I don't know how it could be made any clearer that the BoR does not spell out all our rights.

As for freedom of travel, it's implied in the 1'st Amendment;

.. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...

Kind of hard to assemble if you can't travel.

RE: Used cars and hacking
By Reclaimer77 on 8/22/2013 3:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you just love when obvious Collectivists and Socialist argue on the Constitution?

It's sort of like if Rob Zombie opened a Bible study...

RE: Used cars and hacking
By jmunjr on 8/22/2013 3:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
The Ninth Amendment is what gives us these rights. The right to travel was though to be so fundamental it wasn't directly included in the Constitution. Numerous courts, cases and more more have all backed this up, though generally the details fo such were left to the states. Not until the automobile did the states start regulating this and the right suddenly became a privilege because in order to tax it they had to make it not a right...

RE: Used cars and hacking
By jmunjr on 8/22/2013 3:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and as I first wrote and MnM wrote, the 1st Amendment gives us the right. I am sure you will disagree because it doesn't jive with your agenda. Funny thing about us small government folks is our only agenda is supporting the Constitution, so if it doesn't jive with our agenda it doesn't jive with the Constitution.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki