More than 12,000 people die in the United States each year as a result of impaired driving. To combat this public safety issue, a federal law may soon require automakers to incorporate biometric monitoring systems in new vehicles.
These emerging technologies could help identify when a driver cannot operate a vehicle safely, encouraging safer transportation decisions before a crash occurs. However, the technology comes with trade-offs regarding privacy.
Virginia Tech transportation safety experts Miguel Perez and Naomi Dunn share the pros and cons of biometric monitoring systems and how they could prevent impaired driving fatalities.
What can current and future driver monitoring systems detect?
Today’s monitoring systems already track several symptoms of impairment, including eye gaze and attention, drowsiness and fatigue, steering behavior, and lane-keeping performance.
“Anything that deviates from normal is a potential target for detection,” said Perez.
While heart rate and respiration measurements are still in development, Dunn noted that what is really missing from the equation is “how to piece all of the information together to accurately and reliably identify an impaired driver.”
Why were 2027 requirements for this technology delayed?
Originally slated as a requirement for all new 2027 vehicle models, federal regulators have stalled the implementation of these biometric analysis systems due to concerns about public acceptance and the technology’s readiness.
“This is a safety feature that, if done correctly, could have a huge impact on road safety in the future, but it is far more complicated than it might seem,” Dunn said. “There is currently no technology that is ready for widespread deployment, and rushing something like this would drastically impact consumer acceptance.”
Could your car eventually stop you from driving?
Perez noted that technologically speaking, these biometric detection systems could certainly prevent a vehicle from operating if impairment is detected. However, he added that “current culture wouldn’t perceive this as acceptable, even if the technology were 100% accurate.”
“No one wants to be stranded on the side of the interstate or in a parking garage late at night,” Dunn added.
While no technology is 100% accurate right now, these experts argue there needs to be some middle ground between doing nothing and completely disabling a vehicle.
“A more palatable alternative would be limiting operation of the vehicle, using something like a ‘safe mode,’” Dunn said. “The system would hypothetically activate a protective mechanism limiting vehicle speed, controlling vehicle position in the lane, and increasing headway to the vehicle in front. This could help get the vehicle to a safe place to stop or allow you to get home.”
“These technologies will get better,” said Perez. “I expect automation will continue to be a driving force in this area, and could even get us to a point where a vehicle can automatically transport someone who is impaired to where they need to go or, if needed, call the right parties for assistance.”