Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 3011

Should All New Cars Sold in the U.S. Include Anti-DWI Technology?

Argument in favor

Drunk driving still kills and injures far too many Americans every year. Requiring that new cars be sold with anti-drunk driving technology could dramatically reduce drunk driving-related fatalities and injuries. By preventing drunk drivers from starting their cars, we’d be able to keep them off the roads and prevent them from hurting themselves and others.

Scott's Opinion
···
07/03/2019
Why not? They are all sold with seatbelts and safety glass...right?
Like (45)
Follow
Share
Rebekah 's Opinion
···
07/03/2019
Yes. This is a simple fix to a deadly problem that kills thousands of innocent people every year. End the carnage on our roads!
Like (23)
Follow
Share
···
07/03/2019
Drunk driving is a serious issue, and providing these new technologies can help many Americans and save lives. It will prevent accidents from occurring and can be seriously beneficial to society as a whole. I see no reason as to why not.
Like (19)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Requiring new cars to be manufactured with anti-drunk driving technology could be the beginning of a slippery slope into government overreach into all aspects of Americans’ personal lives. While drunk driving fatalities are injuries are tragic, treating the more than 226 million American drivers as guilty until proven innocent isn’t the answer.

Jakob's Opinion
···
07/03/2019
Although I feel full-heartedly that good intentions are at the root of this proposed bill, this type of technology implemented into the vehicle of every American automobile owner feels more like government over reach than anything else. The federal government needs to take priority and crack down on social issues like eliminating gun ownership, providing healthcare, and preventing climate change— but this feels more like the writings of a dystopian novelist than wholesome intent from Congress.
Like (80)
Follow
Share
burrkitty's Opinion
···
07/03/2019
Barking up the wrong tree. Work on funding research and regulations on AUTONOMOUS DRIVE CARS. Then DUI, DWI, DWD, falling asleep at the wheel, slow reaction speeds, and essentially every accident brought on by human error is ended. Humans can never react as fast or as accurately as computers.
Like (67)
Follow
Share
Daryl's Opinion
···
07/03/2019
The initial intent is valid, but will be a slippery slope into additional invasions of privacy. What's to stop the tech installed to have the all too common types of software that can -- over time -- evolve into having capabilities to monitor speech in the car, or driving ability, etc? Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's impossible to put it back in
Like (43)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 3011?

This bill — the End Drunk Driving Act of 2019 — would require that all new cars sold in the U.S. come equipped with advanced drunk driving-prevention technology within 10 years of this bill’s enactment. This equipment, known as an ignition interlock device, would prevent the operation of a motor vehicle when the driver is under the influence of alcohol by requiring a driver to provide a breath sample prior to starting the vehicle and preventing the vehicle from starting if the driver’s blood alcohol concentration is above the legal limit. This technology would be required to be reliable and accurate, set at the legal limit, unobtrusive and fast, tamper- and circumvention-resistant, functional in extreme environments and easily maintained.

Under this bill, states would be required to pass and enforce statewide laws requiring the installation of an ignition interlock device for a minimum of 180 days on every motor vehicle operated by an individual who has been convicted of DWI or DUI. Starting in FY 2022, the Secretary of Transportation would begin withholding federal funds from states that fail to meet this requirement. The withholding schedule would take effect over a three-year period, with 1% of funds being withheld for noncompliance in FY 2022, 3% withheld for noncompliance in FY 2023 and 5% being withheld for noncompliance in FY 2024 and thereafter.

For the purposes of this bill, “driving while intoxicated” (DWI) and “driving under the influence” (DUI) are defined as having a blood alcohol concentration greater than or equal to the lesser of 1) the state blood alcohol concentration limit in the state where the individual is attempting to drive or 2) 0.08%.

Impact

New cars; car buyers; drivers; auto manufacturers; drinkers; drunk drivers; DWI; DUI; states; federal funding to states.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 3011

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-DepthRep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY), who was dubbed New York state’s “toughest DWI prosecutor” while serving as District Attorney of Nassau County, is a longtime advocate of efforts to combating drunk driving. In the current Congress, Rep. Rice introduced this bill as part of a trio of bills aimed at combating impaired and distracted driving. When she introduced the trio of bills, which also includes the Impaired Driving Child Endangerment Act and the Distracted Driving Education Act of 2019, Rep. Rice said:

“My hope is that with these three bills, we can take a major step toward ending impaired and distracted driving in this country once and for all. Taken together, nearly 15,000 were killed in 2018 because of an impaired or distracted driver – these are deadly and tragic epidemics that have claimed too many lives and destroyed too many families. It’s past time that we take action at the federal level to end this crisis. And the best way to do that is by strengthening our laws and enforcement strategies, leveraging preventative technology and investing in the educational tools that can help change people’s behavior. This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart and I’m going to continue working hard to build support on both sides of the aisle and get these bills passed.”

Rep. Rice concedes that although the cost of installing anti-DWI technology in every vehicle isn’t year clear, it’d likely be incurred by the automaker and passed on to the customer. However, she argues that slight increased costs in exchange for safety are worth it, drawing a parallel to airbags or seatbelts: “But you tell me if people didn’t think it was worth paying a little extra for car to have a seat belts or an air bag in it. These are technologies that save lives.”

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) supports this bill. Its executive director, Richard Mallow, says Rep. Rice’s trio of bills “the most important federal legislation that we could ask for.” Steve Chassman, executive director of the Long Island Council on Alcohol & Drug Dependence, adds that “[s]ubstance use, misuse and abuse and making terrible choices that lead to horrific consequences are putting too many lives in jeopardy and taking too many lives.”

Technocracy News criticizes this bill, arguing that it “would effectively turn 226 million people into suspects”:

“Our politicians are hard at work introducing bills that promise to turn America into a mirror image of China. Rep. Kathleen Rice’s H.R. 3374 bill, otherwise known as the End Drunk Driving Act, would put breathalyzers and ignition interlock devices in every new car. According to the LI Herald, Rice wants to force auto manufacturers to put breathalyzers and ignition interlock devices in new cars by 2029… With close to 280 million cars in the U.S. and over 226 million drivers licenses, nearly every American would be affected by this and other bills. If Rice’s bill is passed it would effectively turn 226 million people into suspects.”

This bill doesn’t have any cosponsors in the current session of Congress. Last Congress, this bill didn’t receive a committee vote and didn’t have any cosponsors.


Of NoteRep. Rice’s office notes that while the U.S. has made tremendous progress on reducing DWI-related fatalities over the past 30 years, there are still an average of over 10,000 DWI-related fatalities each year. In order to achieve this goal, Rep. Rice’s office contends that “the best way to prevent drunk driving fatalities is to prevent anyone who is over the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) limit from operating a vehicle.”

A 2015 study by researchers at the University of Michigan found that requiring alcohol ignition interlock technology in all new cars sold in the U.S. could prevent 85% of all drunk driving fatalities over 15 years, saving over 59,000 lives and preventing 1.25 million drunk driving-related injuries (an 84-89% reduction). The study also found that this technology would save nearly $343 billion over 15 years, and that the cost of the anti-DWI technology could be recovered within the first three years.


Media:

Summary by Lorelei Yang

(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / GregorBister)

AKA

End Drunk Driving Act of 2019

Official Title

To improve the safety of individuals by taking measures to end drunk driving.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
      Highways and Transit
    IntroducedMay 23rd, 2019
    Why not? They are all sold with seatbelts and safety glass...right?
    Like (45)
    Follow
    Share
    Although I feel full-heartedly that good intentions are at the root of this proposed bill, this type of technology implemented into the vehicle of every American automobile owner feels more like government over reach than anything else. The federal government needs to take priority and crack down on social issues like eliminating gun ownership, providing healthcare, and preventing climate change— but this feels more like the writings of a dystopian novelist than wholesome intent from Congress.
    Like (80)
    Follow
    Share
    Barking up the wrong tree. Work on funding research and regulations on AUTONOMOUS DRIVE CARS. Then DUI, DWI, DWD, falling asleep at the wheel, slow reaction speeds, and essentially every accident brought on by human error is ended. Humans can never react as fast or as accurately as computers.
    Like (67)
    Follow
    Share
    The initial intent is valid, but will be a slippery slope into additional invasions of privacy. What's to stop the tech installed to have the all too common types of software that can -- over time -- evolve into having capabilities to monitor speech in the car, or driving ability, etc? Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's impossible to put it back in
    Like (43)
    Follow
    Share
    Enough Bring back personal responsibility Teach it in schools from pre k through graduate school
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    What about people who don’t drink? Why should they pay for it?
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes. This is a simple fix to a deadly problem that kills thousands of innocent people every year. End the carnage on our roads!
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    No Way Requiring All New Cars To Have Have DUI Technology Is Stupid The Requirement of having all new cars to be manufactured with anti-drunk driving technology could be the beginning of a slippery slope into government overreach into all aspects of Americans’ personal lives. While drunk driving fatalities are injuries are tragic, treating the more than 226 million American drivers as guilty until proven innocent isn’t the answer. SneakyPete..... 👎🏻👎🏻 DUI 👎🏻👎🏻. 7.2.19.....
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    Drunk driving is a serious issue, and providing these new technologies can help many Americans and save lives. It will prevent accidents from occurring and can be seriously beneficial to society as a whole. I see no reason as to why not.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    What is wrong with the people who truly believe by implementing a device, which is installed as a means of punishment and a learning tool for those who have committed a crime by displaying poor judgement, for every vehicle will deter the law-abiding citizen. Why should the people who obey the law be obligated to utilize the very same device the law breakers are required to have in their vehicles after their licenses have been revoked. Stop attempting to make decisions based on emotion when simple reason and logic will suffice; especially when everyone is affected. (With the exception of the government of course) The implementation of the interlock device will bring back the days of people taking care of their vehicles and possibly establish a need for more mechanics simply because the ill-informed think it’s a good idea to create laws which cater to the law breaker rather than require those who wish to commit crimes (drinking and driving is a crime, not just foolish) adapt and learn to behave. Stop pandering to the minority and insist the whole step up to the elevated level of responsibility. After all, possessing a driver’s license is a privilege and should be handled as such. If anyone is unable to protect their privilege to drive, they should not be driving. If that is not good enough reason, here is another. Why must those who have not decided to act foolishly and drive while intoxicated be mandated to possess the interlock device in their vehicle they have purchased. Learn how this device operates prior to offering your misguided opinion and then meet the educated at the point of realization that the consumer will shoulder the cost of the device. Nothing is free in this world, and the sooner everyone understands that “government funded” is a devilish way of saying “tax payer funded”, the better off the people will stand by uniting as one with the ability to decide.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Typical democrat mindset, everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Really. Big Brother is going to have me do a breathalyzer each time before I start the car? I mean if we are really serious about no DUI’s then lower the BAC to 0 and call it done. Punish the transgressor. Do not make everyone responsible for some people’s bad choices. Lower the BAC to 0. And make people responsible for themselves.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Look folks, I lost my sister 14 years ago on New Year’s Day . I agree with the premise but I can’t see my 78 yo mother blowing into the breathalyzer trying to go to shop rite, we are a sober living family. But to me yes stop drinking and driving. The bar should offer rides to someone who’s had too much.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    It could be bypassed or fail to work properly etc. How about being personally responsible and not drink! Drunk driving is awful blight, but it shouldn’t be a car which decides that. Do the right thing and you won’t have that problem!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Where does it begin? Where does it end. While the intent is good, we can not control everything. Let's say we implement this for drinking, what do we do to prevent accidents/deaths as a result of impairment due to marijuana or mushrooms, texting, etc.? Education and consequences is probably the better way to go. Besides, a mandate to implement this idea will increase the cost of the car, which, if you think about it then becomes a punishment for all drivers; not fair.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    This would be great legislation to pass to protect people.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    If we can save just one life it is worth it.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Definitely because a lot of times gown-up don’t make rational decisions.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    That’s not your jurisdiction! States probably could. But, market should. Damn you people never stop meddling! LEAVE US ALONE!
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    This technology prevent a driver from starting the car. I believe if fewer people could get on the road while drinking/drunk, there would be fewer highway deaths
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE