Federal infrastructure law has a mandate for technology to stop drunken drivers
WASHINGTON — In the months after her sister and brother-in-law and their three children died in a January 2019 crash caused by a drunken driver, Rana Abbas Taylor, consumed by grief, traveled to Washington, D.C., to talk to lawmakers about her loss.
In the midst of that visit, Stephanie Manning, the chief government affairs officer for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, turned to Abbas Taylor. Her sister and her sister’s family, Manning vowed, would be the “reason we’re going to save thousands of lives in this country.”
Now, nearly three years after her loss, Abbas Taylor is closer than ever to seeing that promise come to fruition.
A provision in the 2,702page bipartisan infrastructure law requires automakers to install anti-drunken driving technology into new automobiles as soon as 2026.
If successful, the law predicts,
U.S. job growth registered its smallest gain this year while the unemployment rate fell by more than forecast to 4.2%, offering a mixed picture of labor-market progress.
Nonfarm payrolls climbed 210,000 last month after an upwardly revised 546,000 gain in October, a Labor Department report showed Friday. The labor force it could ultimately eliminate some 9,400 of the more than 10,000 drunken-driving deaths in the U.S. each year.
“Truly, this can’t happen fast enough,” said Alex Otte, president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
But passing a law is one thing. Implementing it is quite another.
Airbags, first available in the early 1970s, were made mandatory by a 1991 law, with full compliance for all passenger cars not coming until model year 1998 and in all SUVs, pickups and vans until model year 1999.
Rearview cameras, first introduced in 1956 as part of the Buick Centurion concept car, didn’t become required in new vehicles until 1998. That law wasn’t fully implemented until 2018.
This time, there are multiple ways technology can curb drunken or impaired driving, with Mothers Against Drunk Driving offering more participation rate edged up to 61.8%.
The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for a 550,000 payrolls gain and for the jobless rate to fall to 4.5%.
The dollar turned lower and the Treasury yield curve steepened after the data reading. U.S. stock-index futures were still higher on the day.
The jobs report is composed of two surveys — one of employers and the other than 240 options to federal regulators.
But advocates fear that arguments over which technology to adopt and bureaucratic hurdles may result in a slow walk to progress that could cost valuable lives.
“There are many roadblocks on the path between now and this being implemented,” said Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. “We fully were aware that getting this passed by Congress was a big step, but it’s only the first step.”
The drunken-driving technology provision, which falls under the $11 billion road safety portion of the bill, would require the Department of Transportation to issue a rule prescribing a drunken-driving technology safety standard within three years. The bill gives automakers two years to comply but includes language allowing the secretary of Transportation some flexibility if necessary.
Because the bill doesn’t of households. The employer survey showed hiring slowed across industries, including declines at automakers and retail outlets. The household survey showed employment surged by 1.14 million people and many came off the sidelines.
Job growth could be further restricted if the recent emergence of the omicron variant of the coronavirus leads to new restrictions and keeps people from looking for work. Payrolls still specify what technology automakers should use, critics have wondered if the legislation will lead to automakers installing Breathalyzers in every vehicle or technology that consumers would find invasive.
But the law specifies that the technology must be passive, meaning drivers won’t be required to breathe into a Breathalyzer to get the car to start or deploy an ignition interlock system that requires a motorist to blow into a device.
“You will never have to get in your car and do something for your car to start,” said Otte, who said the ignition interlock system is a “punitive” measure designed for someone who has already been caught driving drunk.
But critics say that there isn’t a fool-proof substitute.
“Reliable passive alcohol detection technology does not exist,” Marc Scribner, a senior transportation policy analyst at the libertarian Reason Foundation, wrote in an email. “And it is unclear remain 3.9 million below pre-pandemic levels.
While the headline number disappointed, the drop in the unemployment rate and the rise in labor force participation could help keep the Federal Reserve on track to possibly tighten policy faster than planned as inflation proves more persistent previously thought. The central bank’s dual mandate requires that it weighs both price stability and maximum when or even if it will exist in the future. Despite its best efforts, Congress cannot simply will it into existence.”
Researchers have long been looking at different solutions. In 2008, the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, which represents 17 automotive manufacturers, entered a partnership with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop alcohol detection technologies to prevent drunken drivers from operating vehicles.
Among the technologies the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS program, is researching is a passive system that would instantly detect if a driver has been drinking by analyzing ambient air. The group is also studying a touch-based system that would measure blood alcohol levels under the skin’s surface by shining an infrared light through the fingertip of the driver. Neither technology has been deployed by commercial automakers. employment, and some policy makers fear that cutting off monetary support too soon could hurt the jobs recovery.
“We have to balance those two goals when they’re in tension as they are right now,” Fed Chair Jerome Powell told the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday. “I assure you we will use our tools to make sure this high inflation we’re experiencing does not become entrenched.”
Attorney Sidney Powell and other lawyers who unsuccessfully sought to overturn Michigan’s 2020 election will have to pay $175,250 in legal fees under a court order issued Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Linda Parker of Michigan’s Eastern District said the penalty was “an appropriate sanction” and
“is an amount the court finds needed to deter plaintiffs’ counsel and others from engaging in similar misconduct in the future.”
“Plaintiffs’ attorneys, many of whom seek donations from the public to fund lawsuits like this one ... have the ability to pay this sanction,” Parker wrote.
The decision awards $153,285.62 to the city of Detroit, the state’s largest city and a Democratic stronghold that became a hotbed for false and unproven claims about voter fraud, and $21,964.75 to the state of Michigan.
The nine attorneys involved in bringing the election case — Powell, L. Lin Wood, Howard Kleinhendler, Gregory Rohl, Stefanie Lynn Junttila, Emily Newman, Julia Z. Haller, Brandon Johnson and Scott Hagerstrom — must pay the amounts within 30 days, according to Parker’s order. That’s an unless there’s an appeal.
The suit seeking to overturn the election represented “a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process,” the judge wrote in her August sanctions decision, and sought to deceive the federal court and Americans “into believing that rights were infringed, without regard to whether any laws or rights were in fact violated.”
Parker previously required a copy of her sanctions decision be sent to state disciplinary boards for the possible suspension or disbarment of the nine attorneys involved in the suit. Parker ordered the lawyers to complete 12 hours of continuing legal education in pleading standards and election law.
Attorneys have an obligation to present “only tenable claims” with due diligence and in good faith, the judge ruled. But the attorneys in the election case presented claims backed by neither evidence nor law, she wrote.
In September, the state and city detailed in court filings how much they spent to fight the high-profile and unsuccessful suit that aimed to have Republican Donald Trump named Michigan’s winner despite the fact he lost by 154,000 votes to Democrat Joe Biden.
Their initial tallies equaled $204,156.
Parker reduced Detroit’s award by $28,906.38, mostly because the city’s initial number included work related to an appeal.