Congress Mandates Breath Tests for ALL Drivers?

[Zig]

This all went through before the Republicans regained the house. As tempting as one party rule could be, our government was designed to make it difficult to happen because tyranny tends to be the result. It can happen to either party but the goals of the parties will be different.

Without going too deep blah blah blah. Part of this comes from that crap ain’t nobody reading much less required to read nothing before voting on the dag gone line item veto. ….. [dissasembles box]

Sponsored

 

[Dena]

Without going too deep blah blah blah. Part of this comes from that crap ain’t nobody reading much less required to read nothing before voting on the dag gone line item veto. ….. [dissasembles box]

All I can say is read the Federalist papers. Yes I know what we have is a long way off but it is the guide to fixing things.

 

[REV745DH24]

Cigarette plug air compressor can blow it for me! Lol!

 

[thelostone]

Tesla has been doing this for a while now.

 

[Skye]

I first read about the topic earlier this month.

Congress has used it's authority and tasked government agencies to implement "Advanced Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology ". While the primary driver (no pun intended) is to prevent drunk driving, it also seeks to avoid any impaired driving (mental, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, alcohol).

IF the technology is not implemented in the next ten years, GOV agencies must return to Congress and explain why it hasn't happened.

Check with your state and your state's position on this topic. The discussion hasn't always been one way.

----------------------Quick Read of current CO standard------------

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/colorado-drunk-driving-laws.pdf

In CO, if convicted of some alcohol-related offenses, the state can install/require immobilization technology.

---------------------------------NPR Article--------------

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/20/1124171320/autos-drunk-driving-blood-alcohol-system-ntsb

"The NTSB, which has no regulatory authority and can only ask other agencies to act, said the recommendation is designed to put pressure on NHTSA to move. It could be effective as early as three years from now.

The NTSB, she said, has been pushing NHTSA to explore alcohol monitoring technology since 2012.

Under last year's bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress required NHTSA to make automakers install alcohol monitoring systems within three years. The agency can seek an extension. In the past it has been slow to enact such requirements.

The legislation doesn't specify the technology, only that it must "passively monitor" a driver to determine if they are impaired.

In 2020, the most recent figures available, 11,654 people died in alcohol-related crashes, according to NHTSA data. That's about 30% of all U.S. traffic deaths, and a 14% increase over 2019 figures, the last full year before the coronavirus pandemic, the NTSB said."

-------------------Guardian Article----------------

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/12/drunk-driving-technology-cars-safety

-------------------------References Directly From Infrastructure Law--------

*When you reach the text, use key word search for "impaired". You'll quickly find it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text

(c) Advanced Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology Safety
Standard.-- <<NOTE: Deadline.>> Subject to subsection (e) and not later
than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall issue a final rule prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard under section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, that
requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date
of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving
prevention technology.

(d) <<NOTE: Compliance. Time period.>> Requirement.--To allow
sufficient time for manufacturer compliance, the compliance date of the
rule issued under subsection (c) shall be not earlier than 2 years and
not more than 3 years after the date on which that rule is issued.

(e) <<NOTE: Determinations.>> Timing.--If the Secretary determines
that the Federal motor vehicle safety standard required under subsection
(c) cannot meet the requirements and considerations described in
subsections (a) and (b) of section 30111 of title 49, United States
Code, by the applicable date, the Secretary--

(1) <<NOTE: Extension. Deadline.>> may extend the time
period to such date as the Secretary determines to be necessary,
but not later than the date that is 3 years after the date
described in subsection (c);

(2) <<NOTE: Reports.>> shall, not later than the date
described in subsection (c) and not less frequently than
annually thereafter until the date on which the rule under that
subsection is issued, submit to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report
describing, as of the date of submission of the report--

(A) the reasons for not prescribing a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard under section 30111 of title 49,
United States Code, that requires advanced drunk and
impaired driving prevention technology in all new
passenger motor vehicles;

(B) the deployment of advanced drunk and impaired
driving prevention technology in vehicles;

[[Page 135 STAT. 833]]

(C) any information relating to the ability of
vehicle manufacturers to include advanced drunk and
impaired driving prevention technology in new passenger
motor vehicles; and

(D) <<NOTE: Timeline.>> an anticipated timeline for
prescribing the Federal motor vehicle safety standard
described in subsection (c); and

(3) <<NOTE: Deadline. Reports.>> if the Federal motor
vehicle safety standard required by subsection (c) has not been
finalized by the date that is 10 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, shall submit to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representative
a report describing--

(A) the reasons why the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard has not been finalized;

(B) the barriers to finalizing the Federal motor
vehicle safety standard; and

(C) <<NOTE: Recommenda- tions.>> recommendations to
Congress to facilitate the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard.

 

[Zig]

I first read about the topic earlier this month.

Congress has used it's authority and tasked government agencies to implement "Advanced Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology ". While the primary driver (no pun intended) is to prevent drunk driving, it also seeks to avoid any impaired driving (mental, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, alcohol).

IF the technology is not implemented in the next ten years, GOV agencies must return to Congress and explain why it hasn't happened.

Check with your state and your state's position on this topic. The discussion hasn't always been one way.

----------------------Quick Read of current CO standard------------

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/colorado-drunk-driving-laws.pdf

In CO, if convicted of some alcohol-related offenses, the state can install/require immobilization technology.

---------------------------------NPR Article--------------

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/20/1124171320/autos-drunk-driving-blood-alcohol-system-ntsb

"The NTSB, which has no regulatory authority and can only ask other agencies to act, said the recommendation is designed to put pressure on NHTSA to move. It could be effective as early as three years from now.

The NTSB, she said, has been pushing NHTSA to explore alcohol monitoring technology since 2012.

Under last year's bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress required NHTSA to make automakers install alcohol monitoring systems within three years. The agency can seek an extension. In the past it has been slow to enact such requirements.

The legislation doesn't specify the technology, only that it must "passively monitor" a driver to determine if they are impaired.

In 2020, the most recent figures available, 11,654 people died in alcohol-related crashes, according to NHTSA data. That's about 30% of all U.S. traffic deaths, and a 14% increase over 2019 figures, the last full year before the coronavirus pandemic, the NTSB said."

-------------------Guardian Article----------------

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/12/drunk-driving-technology-cars-safety

-------------------------References Directly From Infrastructure Law--------

*When you reach the text, use key word search for "impaired". You'll quickly find it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text

(c) Advanced Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology Safety
Standard.-- <<NOTE: Deadline.>> Subject to subsection (e) and not later
than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall issue a final rule prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard under section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, that
requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date
of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving
prevention technology.

(d) <<NOTE: Compliance. Time period.>> Requirement.--To allow
sufficient time for manufacturer compliance, the compliance date of the
rule issued under subsection (c) shall be not earlier than 2 years and
not more than 3 years after the date on which that rule is issued.

(e) <<NOTE: Determinations.>> Timing.--If the Secretary determines
that the Federal motor vehicle safety standard required under subsection
(c) cannot meet the requirements and considerations described in
subsections (a) and (b) of section 30111 of title 49, United States
Code, by the applicable date, the Secretary--

(1) <<NOTE: Extension. Deadline.>> may extend the time
period to such date as the Secretary determines to be necessary,
but not later than the date that is 3 years after the date
described in subsection (c);

(2) <<NOTE: Reports.>> shall, not later than the date
described in subsection (c) and not less frequently than
annually thereafter until the date on which the rule under that
subsection is issued, submit to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report
describing, as of the date of submission of the report--

(A) the reasons for not prescribing a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard under section 30111 of title 49,
United States Code, that requires advanced drunk and
impaired driving prevention technology in all new
passenger motor vehicles;

(B) the deployment of advanced drunk and impaired
driving prevention technology in vehicles;

[[Page 135 STAT. 833]]

(C) any information relating to the ability of
vehicle manufacturers to include advanced drunk and
impaired driving prevention technology in new passenger
motor vehicles; and

(D) <<NOTE: Timeline.>> an anticipated timeline for
prescribing the Federal motor vehicle safety standard
described in subsection (c); and

(3) <<NOTE: Deadline. Reports.>> if the Federal motor
vehicle safety standard required by subsection (c) has not been
finalized by the date that is 10 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, shall submit to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representative
a report describing--

(A) the reasons why the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard has not been finalized;

(B) the barriers to finalizing the Federal motor
vehicle safety standard; and

(C) <<NOTE: Recommenda- tions.>> recommendations to
Congress to facilitate the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard.

Would be much easier to outlaw alcohol lol.

 

[Zig]

The definition of mine is slowly eroding

 

[Zig]

Tesla has been doing this for a while now.

And a missing semi colon can brick the car. How’s that for an advanced tech paperweight?

 

[Zig]

All I can say is read the Federalist papers. Yes I know what we have is a long way off but it is the guide to fixing things.

While acknowledged and agreed, ‘i’ shouldn’t ‘have’ too

 

[DCS]

I first read about the topic earlier this month.

Congress has used it's authority and tasked government agencies to implement "Advanced Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology ". While the primary driver (no pun intended) is to prevent drunk driving, it also seeks to avoid any impaired driving (mental, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, alcohol).

IF the technology is not implemented in the next ten years, GOV agencies must return to Congress and explain why it hasn't happened.

Check with your state and your state's position on this topic. The discussion hasn't always been one way.

----------------------Quick Read of current CO standard------------

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/colorado-drunk-driving-laws.pdf

In CO, if convicted of some alcohol-related offenses, the state can install/require immobilization technology.

---------------------------------NPR Article--------------

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/20/1124171320/autos-drunk-driving-blood-alcohol-system-ntsb

"The NTSB, which has no regulatory authority and can only ask other agencies to act, said the recommendation is designed to put pressure on NHTSA to move. It could be effective as early as three years from now.

The NTSB, she said, has been pushing NHTSA to explore alcohol monitoring technology since 2012.

Under last year's bipartisan infrastructure law, Congress required NHTSA to make automakers install alcohol monitoring systems within three years. The agency can seek an extension. In the past it has been slow to enact such requirements.

The legislation doesn't specify the technology, only that it must "passively monitor" a driver to determine if they are impaired.

In 2020, the most recent figures available, 11,654 people died in alcohol-related crashes, according to NHTSA data. That's about 30% of all U.S. traffic deaths, and a 14% increase over 2019 figures, the last full year before the coronavirus pandemic, the NTSB said."

-------------------Guardian Article----------------

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/12/drunk-driving-technology-cars-safety

-------------------------References Directly From Infrastructure Law--------

*When you reach the text, use key word search for "impaired". You'll quickly find it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text

(c) Advanced Drunk and Impaired Driving Prevention Technology Safety
Standard.-- <<NOTE: Deadline.>> Subject to subsection (e) and not later
than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall issue a final rule prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard under section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, that
requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date
of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving
prevention technology.

(d) <<NOTE: Compliance. Time period.>> Requirement.--To allow
sufficient time for manufacturer compliance, the compliance date of the
rule issued under subsection (c) shall be not earlier than 2 years and
not more than 3 years after the date on which that rule is issued.

(e) <<NOTE: Determinations.>> Timing.--If the Secretary determines
that the Federal motor vehicle safety standard required under subsection
(c) cannot meet the requirements and considerations described in
subsections (a) and (b) of section 30111 of title 49, United States
Code, by the applicable date, the Secretary--

(1) <<NOTE: Extension. Deadline.>> may extend the time
period to such date as the Secretary determines to be necessary,
but not later than the date that is 3 years after the date
described in subsection (c);

(2) <<NOTE: Reports.>> shall, not later than the date
described in subsection (c) and not less frequently than
annually thereafter until the date on which the rule under that
subsection is issued, submit to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report
describing, as of the date of submission of the report--

(A) the reasons for not prescribing a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard under section 30111 of title 49,
United States Code, that requires advanced drunk and
impaired driving prevention technology in all new
passenger motor vehicles;

(B) the deployment of advanced drunk and impaired
driving prevention technology in vehicles;

[[Page 135 STAT. 833]]

(C) any information relating to the ability of
vehicle manufacturers to include advanced drunk and
impaired driving prevention technology in new passenger
motor vehicles; and

(D) <<NOTE: Timeline.>> an anticipated timeline for
prescribing the Federal motor vehicle safety standard
described in subsection (c); and

(3) <<NOTE: Deadline. Reports.>> if the Federal motor
vehicle safety standard required by subsection (c) has not been
finalized by the date that is 10 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, shall submit to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representative
a report describing--

(A) the reasons why the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard has not been finalized;

(B) the barriers to finalizing the Federal motor
vehicle safety standard; and

(C) <<NOTE: Recommenda- tions.>> recommendations to
Congress to facilitate the Federal motor vehicle safety
standard.

Wow! Good read! I'll have to come back and carefully read it.

 

[Goblue]

Looked over the bill and I don’t see that.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684

 

[DCS]

Here's another video.

 

[Dena]

While acknowledged and agreed, ‘i’ shouldn’t ‘have’ too

You can read the crib notes. They are called the Constitution but the short version doesn't include the detailed wisdom behind the words. It much different when you can look at the 250 year old words of the people who wrote it. As a compromise, look at the version of the federalist papers with the introduction and notes by Charles R. Kesler. I have the paper back book and downloaded a copy into my mobile device.

 

[steveo1960]

So if I'm weaving on the Long Island Expressway (NY) in order to avoid killer potholes, this thing is going to classify me as drunk and turn off my car? Without getting political, all this control stuff (EV, no gas stoves, no gas lawn mowers, etc) is nothing but ploys to control the population under the guise of climate change. It's super easy to cut your electricity if you use "too much". Not so much with gas or oil heat.
However, I digress.
Back to your regularly scheduled program

 

[DCS]

So if I'm weaving on the Long Island Expressway (NY) in order to avoid killer potholes, this thing is going to classify me as drunk and turn off my car? Without getting political, all this control stuff (EV, no gas stoves, no gas lawn mowers, etc) is nothing but ploys to control the population under the guise of climate change. It's super easy to cut your electricity if you use "too much". Not so much with gas or oil heat.
However, I digress.
Back to your regularly scheduled program

You nailed it !

Sponsored