The Controversy Surrounding DUI Technology

From 2020 to 2024, 31,602 drivers involved in fatal crashes were reported as under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication at the time of the crash. And new DUI technology (including Driver Alcohol Detection Systems (DADSS), driver monitoring cameras, breath- and touch-based sensors, and passive alcohol monitoring) is expected to be introduced from 2027 to prevent crashes and save lives.

However, the introduction of DUI technology is mired in controversy and uncertainty. There’s compelling data to suggest that the technology isn’t quite ready, plus fears about remote surveillance and control, and its imminent application has not been met with universal approval.

A recent challenge by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky to reverse the mandate of some DUI technology on the grounds that it represents an invasion and interference was rejected, yet further challenges are likely.

This study will incorporate new data to provide fresh insights regarding the controversies surrounding the future of DUI technology.

We’ll take a close look at anti-drunk technology to find out what it means for drivers, including how it actually works. We’ll also consider the danger of knee-jerk conspiracies around technology, plus why there are significant doubts about some of the tech, and why drivers may have legitimate concerns about some of the recorded data.

Let’s first consider national DUI driver-involved crash statistics to assess broad patterns.

DUI Fatalities in the United States

Between 2020 and 2024 in the U.S., 31,602 drivers under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or medication were involved in fatal crashes. Although DUI driver-involved crash rates have significantly decreased since 2022, impaired drivers still account for 30% of all road deaths.

The states that featured the highest DUI driver involved in fatal crash rates in 2024 per 100,000 of the population (rounded to 2 decimal places) are as follows, with outlier Montana’s rate double that of second-placed South Carolina.

At the other end of the DUI Driver spectrum, here are the states featuring the lowest DUI driver-involved crash rates during 2024.

According to 2024 FARS data, since 2021, the U.S. has been subject to a gradual national DUI driver-involved fatality decline, with New York, Massachusetts, and DC posting rates consistently lower than 1.0. (Although Michigan’s sharp drop post-2021 is likely due to a reporting or data classification issue.)

Generally speaking, Southern states consistently earn DUI driver-involved fatality rates well over the national average, with Northeastern states consistently posting rates under the national average.

New York and New Jersey remain among the safest states in the U.S. in terms of DUI driver-involved crash fatalities, though recent trends show some concerning signs. New York consistently posts low rates, with 0.53 deaths per 100,000 in 2024: that’s around 67% below the national average (1.61). Between 2020 and 2024, New York’s rate remained largely stable, with 2021’s 0.80 mirroring a national spike.

New Jersey’s rate shows a clear upward trend. While consistently low over many decades, its rate has doubled over five years, from 0.67 per 100,000 in 2020 to 1.36 by 2024. This brings the state closer to the national average of 1.61, and suggests a growing safety issue.

Despite being subject to differing trajectories, both states fare better than the majority of the U.S. Yet, there’s a clear need to strengthen the focus on crash prevention strategies in New Jersey.

New York and New Jersey aside, the impending introduction of in-car technology should lower DUI driver-involved fatality rates in all states. But what will that introduction entail?

DUI Technology

Once an applied NHTSA rule is final (2027 is the currently scheduled point at which it will be implemented), all new vehicles will feature anti-drunk tech. Here’s what that means for buyers.

Firstly, there are three main types of anti-DUI technology.

Camera-Based

In this case, cameras placed on the dashboard or rear-view mirror scan and measure eye movement to assess intoxication levels and signs of driver impairment while the car is moving.

Touch-Based

Touch-based tech measures blood alcohol concentration (BAC) by using a finger sensor (which may be incorporated on a car’s start button). If the test reveals a BAC level over the legal limit, the driver won’t be able to start the vehicle.

Breath-Based

This type of tech measures BAC with a breath sensor attached to the steering column. Again, depending on the result of an initial check, the car will either start or remain stationary.

One associated issue is the interpretation of what the tech means. For some, it’s a welcome harnessing of cutting-edge technology to save lives. But for others, it’s far more sinister. Until the tech rollout has been finalized, multiple conspiracy theories will continue to prevail.

The ‘Kill Switch’ and Conspiracies Vs. Safety First

Drunk driving deaths in the U.S. have increased by 35% over the past decade (according to recent figures, someone is killed or injured by an impaired driver every 79 seconds).

And technology intended to prevent such incidents (including the DADSS breath sensor) has been in development since the early 2010s: projections suggest that, once it’s implemented, it could potentially save over 10,000 lives every year.

Yet the NHTSA missed its original November 2024 deadline to finalize implementation rules, and the agency is still reviewing public comments and evaluating technical readiness.

Since the mandate regarding tech safety measures was initially announced by Congress in 2021, public misunderstanding has complicated its progress. For example, social media claims that the proposed law could allow the government to remotely shut down cars by using a remote ‘kill switch’ have passed into common lore.

Some lawmakers have apparently taken the rumors in question as fact and have used this potentiality to attempt to repeal the measure entirely. This is despite the fact that the law only requires automakers to install alcohol-detection technology that automatically prevents driving while under the influence, and does not feature any element of external control over vehicles.

Yet technical challenges remain a central issue prior to the in-car safety measure rollout. Until these hurdles are fully addressed, and as the NHTSA continues to refine the system, public skepticism will continue. And in some cases, it might well be justified.

Anti-drunk-driving tech: teething problems

One of the key reasons for concern regarding in-car DUI tech is the possibility of mistakes, with the question of ‘false positives’ (when the system incorrectly attributes impairment to non-impaired drivers) central to this worry. As part of a report on the matter, the NHTSA has canvassed the public regarding what an acceptable rate of false positives might look like. 

And there are legitimate questions around tech calibration and how a DUI system will handle substances like mouthwash or cigarette smoke, plus medical conditions such as hypoglycemia, all of which are capable of causing a false positive alcohol reading.

Hand sanitizer can confuse a touch-based sensor into delivering a ‘positive’ reading. There are also concerns about DUI tech failing to distinguish between distraction, fatigue, and drunkenness.

The NHTSA has explicitly acknowledged that a sober driver wrongly denied the use of their vehicle could subsequently be left stranded and exposed: this is the kind of serious edge case scenario the permutations of which must be fully resolved before mandatory tech use is finalized.

Another issue yet to be resolved: legitimate concerns regarding the use of recorded driver data.

DUI Tech: Data Worries

The imminent mandatory DUI systems will use the aforementioned steering column breath sensors or touch-based sensors to measure blood alcohol through the skin. The safety benefits are likely to be significant. And yet, one particular downside is the subsequent use of the recorded data.

Many vehicles already collect extensive driving data—tracking behavior like speed, braking, the use of devices and infotainment features, and location—and, in some cases, sell it to third parties (with automakers pocketing up to $100 per vehicle by selling the data to companies such as LexisNexis).

The information collected from biometric monitoring could represent a further level of personal data profiteering. Until fears regarding the farming of such data are assuaged, genuine concerns will persist.

DUI In-Car Technology: Problems To Resolve Before Roll-Out

With DUI crashes claiming 31,602 lives in the U.S. between 2020 and 2024, the issue is a clear public safety matter. And imminent DUI-prevention technologies like Driver Alcohol Detection Systems (DADSS), driver monitoring cameras, breath- and touch-based sensors, and passive alcohol monitoring should prevent impaired driving and save thousands of lives every year.

Yet the development and implementation of DUI technology has faced significant opposition. As previously noted, the mandate was challenged due to matters pertaining to personal freedom and unnecessary government interference. Ongoing skepticism, political debate, and public misunderstanding (and misinformation) have further stymied efforts to progress the safety measures.

The introduction of DUI technology is mired in controversy and uncertainty, with compelling data to suggest that the technology isn’t quite ready, plus fears about remote surveillance and control

National DUI fatality data reveal uneven trends across states. While overall rates have been declining (from 2.09 per 100,000 in 2021 to 1.61 in 2024) some regions continue to suffer high rates. Outlier Montana (9.06 per 100,000) and South Carolina (4.11) posted the highest DUI fatality rates, while states like Michigan (0.14) and New York (0.53) reported the lowest numbers. New York has maintained a consistently low rate over many years: New Jersey has seen its rate double from 0.67 in 2020 to 1.36 in 2024, signaling growing safety challenges.

The DUI technology in question falls into three main categories: camera-based systems that monitor eye movement, touch-based sensors that measure blood alcohol via a finger sensor, and breath-based sensors incorporated into the steering column. While the introduction of these technologies will save lives, there are some technical worries.

One surrounds the potential for a false positive reading that may be initiated by mouthwash, hand sanitizer, or a medical condition. There’s also the possibility that intoxication may sometimes be indistinguishable from fatigue or distraction. The NHTSA will continue to work on these issues to guarantee reliability before the systems are imposed.

Data privacy is another significant concern. Mandatory DUI systems will store driver biometric data, with vehicles already tracking a driver’s location, speed, braking, and their use of phones and other devices. Automakers could potentially monetize this data (as they have done in previous cases), raising valid concerns regarding privacy and consent. 

Despite some outstanding issues, the eventual deployment of DUI technology should prevent thousands of deaths every year. Problems surrounding public safety benefits, technical reliability (in this case, while 99.9% accuracy is impressive, it’s insufficient), and data monetization must be resolved before the technology is broadly implemented. Ultimately, until those issues are dealt with, conspiracies and challenges to DUI mandates will continue.

Drivers and passengers injured across New York’s busiest roads trust Chaikin Trial Group to fight for maximum compensation after a car accident caused by negligent and reckless drivers.

Contact our Long Island Car Accident Lawyer today for a free consultation, and remember: you pay no fee unless we win.