The $21 million mistake in the highway bill

Convincing Republicans and Democrats to agree on anything is a tall task in Washington’s hyper-partisan atmosphere. Yet after 10 years of short-term fixes and unfulfilled pledges to fix our crumbling infrastructure, Congress approved a bipartisan, five-year plan to fund the country’s highways. 

The plan is far from perfect—the combination of one-time-only funding tricks and increased spending mean that in five years, Congress is facing a $100 billion shortfall. Given these financial constraints, it’s surprising Congress has chosen to dramatically increase funding (an additional $21 million) for a controversial program to place alcohol-sensing technology in all cars. 

{mosads}The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (DADSS) program is a partnership between leading automakers and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop technology that can instantly and passively sense a driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level.  It’s not far from completion: Earlier this year, the program unveiled a test vehicle equipped with road-ready prototypes.  

In theory, it sounds like a simple way to stop drunk driving. Too many drinks and a driver’s car won’t start. But in reality, the technology is poised to inconvenience moderate, responsible drinkers (and non-drinkers) and enable those who would like to eliminate a driver’s ability to have anything to drink prior to driving. 

Most proponents of developing these passive alcohol sensors state the technology will be voluntary and set at .08. But neither of these outcomes is likely. 

The notion of voluntary installation is particularly dubious. Drunk drivers aren’t known for making responsible, self-aware choices. It is thus extremely unlikely that the dangerous drunk drivers who routinely imperil our lives on the roadways will opt to purchase a car with technology that will keep them from drinking. Like so many technologies (air-bags, back-up cameras) that began as a voluntary add-on, it won’t be long before alcohol sensors are mandatory. 

The promise of setting the sensors at the current legal limit is also tough to swallow. Of course Americans will be more interested in supporting technology that is set at the current legal limit—which is why advocates are quick to assure us that it won’t be set lower. Unfortunately, legal and physiological realities make it highly unlikely carmakers and DADSS engineers will be able to keep the .08 promise. 

If you were to quickly consume several shots of vodka or whiskey, your BAC level wouldn’t immediately spike. As the body metabolizes alcohol, your BAC level slowly rises over time. Setting a DADSS device at .08 could easily allow drivers to start their cars while below the legal limit only to have their BAC levels rise (potentially significantly) over the course of their trips. Car makers don’t want to be sued if one of these drivers then causes an accident.

DADSS researchers recognize this reality. The former head of the program once conceded to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the devices would be set within a safety margin. Assuming that safety margin means the devices will be set closer to .04 or .05, most drivers would be unable to start their cars after consuming just one or two drinks with dinner.

Stopping Americans who responsibly consume alcohol from driving home safely is not an effective use of limited federal tax dollars. Considering more than 70 percent of all alcohol related traffic fatalities are caused by drivers with BAC levels of .15 or greater (almost twice the legal limit), Congress should focus anti-drunk driving funding on stopping these dangerous drivers from getting behind the wheel. 

Instead of placing passive alcohol sensors in the cars of all Americans, let’s call on Congress to increase funding for parole and monitoring of convicted drunk drivers and help these problem drinkers get the treatment and supervision they desperately need. That’s a cause worthy of bipartisan support.

Longwell is managing director of the American Beverage Institute.